f\  m 

SV.  t / ' /!  ' • ' fi  ’ ’ 1 * | ‘ / 

Subject  to  Revision. 

[TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN  INSTITUTE  OF  MINING  ENGINEERS.] 


DISCUSSION 


Of  the  Papers  of  C.  P.  Sandberg  on  “ Kail  Specifications  and  Kail 
Inspection  in  Europe,”  of  C.  B.  Dudley  on  the  “Wearing  Capacity 
of  Steel  Rails  in  Relation  to  their  Chemical  Composition  and  Physi- 
cal Properties,”  and  of  A.  L.  Holley  on  “ Rail  Patterns,”  at  the 
Philadephia  Meeting,  February,  1881.* 


/ 


Ashbel  Welch,  Lambertville,  N.  J. : Dr.  Dudley  has  given 
the  wear  of  steel  rails  under  four  different  conditions.  He  arrives 
at  the  conclusion  that  the  softer  rails,  or  those  that  from  their 
composition  ought  to  be  softer,  wear  better  than  the  harder, 
But  there  is  another  condition  which  has  an  important  bearing 
on  the  subject,  and  should  not  be  overlooked, — the  weight  on  a 
wheel.  With  the  lighter  weights  of  the  past,  the  softer  rails  may 
have  worn  best ; with  the  heavier  weights  of  the  future,  the  harder 
may  wear  best.  Weights  will  probably  be  increased  up  to  the 
capacity  of  steel  to  bear ; then  doubtless  the  harder  steel  will  wear 
best. 

A leaden  rail  with  ten ’pounds  on  a wheel  might  carry  millions  of 
tons,  but  with  100  pounds  on  a wheel,  it  would  be  destroyed  by  a few 
thousand  tons.  So  in  the  days  of  iron  rails,  my  experience  was 
that  the  softer  rails  under  light  machinery  stood  better  than  some  of 
the  harder ; but  under  heavy  machinery  the  softer  were  much  the 
most  rapidly  destroyed.  It  is  doubtless  the  same  with  steel. 

The  pounding  motion  of  the  wheels  loosens  or  spreads  the  par- 
ticles of  a thin  film  of  steel;  the  pull  lengthwise  on  the  rail  de- 


* The  remarks  as  here  given,  as  in  the  previous  discussion  of  Dr.  Dudley’s 
papers,  have  all  been  written  out  or  revised  by  the  participants  in  the  discussion, 
•'-’land  represent,  therefore,  their  mature  views.  It  has  been  thought  that  this  plan, 
'<£  when  it  can  be  carried  out  without  doing  any  of  the  speakers  injustice  in  debate, 
f , . is  much  to  be  preferred  to  a strictly  verbatim  report.  The  remarks  of  Mr. 

Chanute  were  sent  to  the  secretary  after  the  meeting,  and  although  they  did  not 
/ form  a part  of  the  actual  discussion,  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  desirability  of 
including  them  in  this  report. 

» * 

Cf  ■ ' 


T.  M.  D.,  Secretary. 


X 


45471 


2 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 
- > 


taches  or  scrapes  them  off.  The  softer  the  metal  the  more  liable  the 
particles  to  spread  or  flow  sideways ; the  more  brittle,  the  more 
liable  the  particles  to  break  loose.  With  light  machinery  flowing 
may  be  practically  nothing,  with  heavy  machinery  it  may  be  enough 
to  wear  the  rail  out  very  rapidly.  At  a certain  point  doubling  the 
weight  might  increase  the  flow  tenfold.  The  harder  the  metal  with- 
out decrease  of  tenacity  or  increase  of  brittleness,  the  better  we 
should  expect  it  to  wear.  All  may  depend  on  what  is  left  in  or 
used  to  make  it  hard. 

Dr.  Dudley’s  observations  give  us  incidentally  the  difference  in 
wear  per  million  of  tons  carried,  caused  by  difference  of  weight  on  i 
a wheel.  On  the  south  or  loaded  track  the  gross  tonnage  was 
8,000,000  per  annum,  on  the  north  or  light  track  5,000,000.  As 
about  the  same  number  of  wheels  must  have  gone  one  way  as  the 
other,  the  average  weight  on  a wheel  must  have  been  sixty  per  cent, 
more  on  the  loaded  track  than  on  the  light.  The  wear  per  million 
of  tons  gross  load,  as  found  by  summing  up  the  wear  on  each  rail, 
averages  31  per  cent,  more  on  the  loaded  than  on  the  light  track. 

So  in  this  case  the  wear  per  ton  of  gross  load  increased  as  the  0.6 
power  of  the  weight  on  a wheel.  With  iron  rails  in  former  years 
it  increased  much  faster  than  this  rate.  As  machinery  becomes 
heavier  it  will  doubtless  increase  faster  with  steel. 

As  the  same  engines  and  tenders  with  the  same  weights  on  a wheel 
passed  over  each  track,  and  as  the  speeds  were  probably  greatest  on 
the  light  track,  the  difference  in  wear  due  to  difference  in  weight  on 
the  freight-car  wheels  was  probably  greater  than  above  estimated. 
The  former  weights  on  a freight-car  wheel  was  about  (2QQ0Q+_2QQ0Q) 

= 5000  pounds.  The  weights  now  coming  into  use  are  about 
,24000+40000)  _ goOO  pounds,  an  increase  of  60  per  cent,  over  the 

weights  when  the  wear  reported  took  place.  This  may  entirely 
change  the  relative  rates  of  wear  of  hard  and  soft  steel. 

Several  interesting  inferences  seem  to  be  deducible  from  Dr. 
Dudley’s  observations,  but  I confine  myself  to  the  single  point  I 
have  made.  Ten  years  ago  I found  the  wear  of  steel  on  the  roads 
between  Philadelphia  and  New  York  about  50  per  cent,  more  than 
Dr.  Dudley  found  it  on  his  road.  This  is  accounted  for  by  the 
better  roadbed  and  smaller  proportion  of  passenger  trains  at  high 
speed  on  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad,  by  the  narrow-guage  cars  on 
wider-guage  roads  as  it  then  was,  and  especially  by  the  steel  rails 
between  here  and  New  York  being  then  only  in  the  worst  places. 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


3 


The  softer  Sheffield  rails  made  from  Swedish  pig  wore  better  than 
either  of  the  two  harder  kinds  I got  from  France. 

Dr.  Dudley’s  conclusion  seems  to  be  that  rails  should  approach 
the  condition  of  Bessemer  iron.  I found  that  the  wear  of  iron  rails 
from  Bethlehem  was  about  25  per  cent,  more  than  that  of  steel  from 
Sheffield,  laid  in  the  same  track  and  under  the  same  circumstances. 
This,  however,  does  not  show  the  relative  durations  of  the  rails,  for 
steel  owing  to  its  elasticity  is  only  injured  on  the  surface,  and  will 
wear  till  it  is  reduced  to  a skeleton  ; while  iron  is  affected  all  through 
by  each  blow,  and  will  finally  go  to  pieces  before  it  is  worn  down. 
The  point  I make  is,  that  though  the  softer  steel  may  have  worn 
best  under  the  lighter  machinery  of  the  past,  it  does  not  follow  that 
it  will  wear  best  under  the  heavier  machinery  of  the  future. 

The  patterns  of  steel  rails  now  displayed,  and  the  papers  of 
Mr.  Sandberg  and  of  Mr.  Holley,  with  the  allusion  that  has  been 
made  to  the  history  of  the  now  accepted  forms,  make  it  proper  to 
give  a short  historical  notice  of  the  first  rails  which  had  certain 
characteristics  common  to  all  these  patterns,  and  of  the  principles  on 
which  they  were  made. 

The  early  steel  rails,  copied  after  the  iron,  had  very  heavy  bases 
and  stems,  and  no  flat  surfaces  for  fishing.  One  fifth  to  one  eighth 
of  the  metal  put  into  them  did  little  or  no  good,  and  the  fish  splice, 
then  coming  to  be  recognized  as  the  best,  could  not  be  used  to  advan- 
tage. The  useless  weight  made  steel  rails  so  expensive  that  they 
came  into  use  very  slowly.  In  1865  I made  a pattern  to  avoid 
these  faults,  guided  by  the  following  considerations : The  theory 
then  was,  and  I suppose  is  yet,  that  a blow  on  iron  such  as  that 
given  by  a locomotive  wheel,  is  felt  all  through  the  metal,  and 
produces  a permanent  though  minute  disintegration  or  change 
of  form,  the  accumulations  of  which  must  in  time  weaken  and 
unweld  the  base  and  stem  as  well  as  the  head  of  the  rail,  and  so 
extra  metal  must  be  put  into  the  lower  part  of  the  rail  to  compensate 
for  this  gradual  weakening;  but  that  in  steel,  owing  to  its  elasticity, 
such  a blow  produces  no  permanent  effect  on  the  metal  except  at  the 
surface.  Therefore  the  stem  and  base  of  steel  may  be  very  much 
lighter  than  of  iron,  not  only  on  account  of  its  greater  strength  and 
freedom  from  welds,  but  also  from  its  immunity  from  deterioration 
by  use.  Hence  all  the  metal  possible  should  be  in  the  head  where 
the  wear  is;  and  as  little  as  consistent  with  safety  in  the  stem  and 
base  where  there  is  no  wear,  and  with  steel,  no  deterioration.  In 
England  where  the  supports  are  far  apart  strength  and  stiffness  are 


4 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


primary  considerations ; in  this  country  where  the  supports  are 
close  together,  other  considerations  engross  attention.  The  width 
of  the  base  should  be  determined  by  the  endurance  of  the  wood  it 
is  to  set  on,  and  for  this  purpose  must  be  much  greater  than  is 
necessary  for  strength  or  to  prevent  upsetting.  Partly  from  calcu- 
lation and  partly  from  observing  the  behavior  of  iron  and  steel  in 
circumstances  somewhat  similar,  I made  up  my  mind  that  three- 
eighths  of  an  inch  thickness  of  stem  was  ample  to  bear  the  weights 
and  the  shocks,  vertical  and  lateral,  of  the  machinery  then  in  use ; 
and  that  an  eighth  thickness  at  the  edge  of  the  base  was  sufficient 
to  transmit  to  the  wood  all  the  pressure  its  fibres  would  bear. 

In  accordance  with  these  views,  but  conceding  something  for  the 
sake  of  abundant  safety  and  the  facility  of  manufacture,  I made  a 
pattern  with  4 inches  height,  4 inches  base,  head  2§  wide  X 1 J deep, 
stem  7-16  thick,  and  edge  of  base  8-16  thick  ; weighing  53  pounds 
to  the  yard.  Assuming  that  fishing  made  the  best  joint,  I made 
(as  I had  previously  done  in  very  slender  iron  rails)  the  under  side 
of  the  head  and  top  of  the  base  plane  surfaces,  as  broad  as  possible, 
so  as  to  give  a perfect  and  broad  bearing  to  the  edges  of  the  fish- 
plates, and  as  near  horizontal  as  possible,  so  as  to  lessen  the  tendency 
of  the  fish-plate  to  work  out  by  the  jar. 

This  pattern  was  condemned  by  every  engineer  to  whom  it  was 
shown,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  too  weak  and  could  not  be  rolled. 
I was  fully  aware  of  the  difficulties  of  manufacture,  but  was  con- 
fident they  could  be  overcome.  In  one  point  I yielded  too  much  to 
the  manufacturers ; rounding  off  the  corners  on  the  under  side  of 
the  head. 

After  long  negotiations  an  order  for  200  tons  for  trial  was  accepted 
by  Naylor  & Co.,  in  August,  1866,  and  sent  to  England  to  be  exe- 
cuted. There  everybody  that  saw  it  condemned  it,  and  for  several 
months  John  Brown  & Co.  refused  to  roll  a rail  of  such  a preposterous 
shape.  As  I wished  to  have  an  extreme  test  of  the  correctness  of 
my  ideas,  I insisted  on  the  performance  of  the  contract.  At  last  the 
rails  were  rolled,  tested  by  Kirkaldy  in  London,  and  in  the  spring 
of  1867  laid  down  in  some  of  the  hardest  places  between  this  city 
and  New  York.  Several  hundred  tons  of  the  same  pattern  were 
laid  the  next  season.  I continued  to  watch  and  test  them  carefully 
for  eight  years,  and  so  far  as  I could  find  not  one  ever  broke,  bent, 
or  compressed  in  the  stem,  or  gave  out  in  any  other  way. 

Thus  the  principles  on  which  this  pattern  was  made,  and  its  pro- 
portions with  the  machinery  then  in  use,  were  shown  to  be  correct 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


5 


as  seen  from  the  consumers7  point  of  view.  It  had  as  big  a head 
and  wore  as  long,  and  was  as  free  from  accident  as  previous  steel 
rails  twenty  per  cent,  heavier.  Some  manufacturers  in  this  country 
condemned  the  pattern  because,  without  trial,  they  believed  it  could 
not  be  safely  rolled.  But  John  Brown  & Co.,  after  trial,  believed 
it  could  be,  and  showed  their  confidence  by  soliciting  an  order  for 
ten  thousand  tons  more  of  the  same  pattern. 

The  principles  of  this  pattern,  with  the  proportions  slightly 
modified,  were  gradually,  and  are  now  generally  adopted.  Mr. 
Hinckley  after  a year’s  observation,  adopted  the  pattern  with  a very 
slight  addition  to  the  metal  below  the  head,  and  in  1868  relaid  one  track 
with  it  from  this  city  to  Baltimore,  where  the  rails  may  still  be  seen. 

In  1874  Mr.  Chanute  on  the  Erie,  and  Mr.  Sayre  on  the  Lehigh 
Valley,  simultaneously  and  without  concert,  adopted  the  sloping  sides 
of  the  head,  which  important  feature  is  now  in  general  use. 

In  1870  Sandberg’s  patterns  were  published,  embodying  the  same 
principles  with  the  angles  and  proportions  slightly  different.  Whether 
he  knew  what  had  been  done  before  I do  not  know.  Doubtless  the 
same  considerations  on  which  I acted  occurred  to  many  others. 

As  the  machinery  is  now  much  heavier  than  in  1866,  and  steel 
not  now  so  good  as  that  made  by  John  Brown  & Co.,  from  Swedish 
pig,  and  as  the  price  of  steel  is  very  much  lower,  a small  saving  in 
weight  is  of  less  importance.  I have  nothing  to  say  against  the 
somewhat  heavier  proportions  now  generally  used — for  example  J- 
inch  stem  instead  of  T76  and  J-inch  thickness  at  edge  of  base  in- 
stead of  Tse. 

In  Sandberg’s  new  patterns  of  1878,  he  has  however  adopted 
almost  the  identical  proportions  I used  in  1866.  His  thickness  of 
stem  is  exactly,  and  thickness  of  the  edge  of  the  base  is  very  nearly 
the  same.  His  fishing  angle,  which  in  1870  was  22°  is  now  30° — 
mine  was  always  28°.  It  is  gratifying  to  find  that  so  able  an  engi- 
neer, after  so  wide  and  so  long  experience,  has  within  the  last  three 
years  settled  down  upon  the  proportions  I adopted  fifteen  years  ago, 
and  which  before  they  were  tested  were  so  universally  condemned, 
especially  in  the  very  dimensions  now  adopted  by  him. 

I think  Sandberg’s  heads  are  too  convex,  and  his  bases  rather 
narrow.  In  America  bases  are  always  far  wider  than  stiffness  and 
stability  require  ; the  practical  question  being  what  width  of  bearing 
does  the  timber  require.  Where  chestnut  ties  are  used  the  base 
should  be  not  less  than  four  and  a half  inches.  There  is  therefore 
little  practical  relation  between  the  height  and  base. 


6 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


The  old  plan  was  to  increase  every  part  of  a rail  much  in  the 
same  proportion.  But  each  part  should  be  in  proportion  to  what  it 
has  to  do.  The  head  should  be  deep  in  proportion  to  the  amount  of 
traffic  and  the  lowness  of  the  rate  of  interest  on  its  cost.  The  body 
need  only  be  strong  enough  to  carry  the  head  after  it  is  well  worn 
down,  and  that  depends  on  the  weight  of  the  machinery,  and  in  the 
case  of  steel  has  little  to  do  with  the  volume  of  traffic,  except  so  far 
as  that  affects  weight  of  machinery.  As  on  most  railroad  systems, 
the  same  machinery  is  used  on  main  lines  with  heavy  traffic,  and 
branches  with  light,  I suggested  in  1874  that  each  system  adopt 
the  same  body  of  rail  for  both,  and  make  the  head  deeper  on  the 
main  lines,  shallower  on  the  branches.  This  plan  was  adopted  on 
the  Pennsylvania  Railroad.  Sandberg  seems  to  recognize  this  in 
his  patterns  of  1878. 

R.  W.  Hunt,  Troy,  N.  Y. : Again  Dr.  Dudley  presents  to  our- 
consideration  a series  of  most  carefully  conducted  experiments,  and 
while  I fully  appreciate  the  labor  and  thought  this  work  has  cost 
him,  I must  still  hesitate  to  accept  his  deductions. 

This  paper  differs  from  the  previous  one  in  that  it  deals  exclusively 
with  the  wearing  qualities  of  steel  rails.  Dr.  Dudley  gives  his  reason 
for  this  change  in  the  following  statement : “ With  the  improvement 
in  maintenance  of  way  which  has  characterized  the  Pennsylvania 
Railroad  during  the  last  five  or  six  years,  the  removal  of  rails  from 
the  track  from  the  first  two  of  these  causes  (i.  e.,  broken  and  crushed), 
has,  if  I am  right,  quite  notably  diminished.  This  certainly  is  true 
with  regard  to  broken  rails.  And  if,  as  time  advances,  the  number 
of  crushed  rails  shall  diminish,  both  because  of  the  continued  im- 
provement in  maintenance  of  way  before  referred  to,  and  Recause, 
owing  to  improved  and  better  methods  at  the  steel  works,  there  are 
fewer  crushed  rails  caused  by  physical  defects  in  the  steel,  the  ques- 
tion of  the  wearing  capacity  of  steel  rails  obviously  becomes  the  all 
important  one.” 

Certainly  the  condition  of  the  roadbed  has  much  to  do  with  rails 
breaking,  crushing,  and  wearing.  If  the  Pennsylvania  and  other 
railroads  have  done  and  are  doing  their  part,  Dr.  Dudley  courteously 
admits  that  the  steel  works  have  performed  part  of  theirs.  But  as 
far  as  I am  informed,  the  formulas  which  they  have  used  have 
been  and  are  still  quite  wide  of  the  one  he  continues  to  recommend. 
The  rails  which  are  not  breaking  or  crushing  to  so  great  an  extent  as 
formerly,  contain  higher  percentages  of  both  carbon  and  manganese. 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


7 


I will  venture  the  assertion  that  Dr.  Dudley’s  road  has  put  in  but 
few  rails  during  the  last  eighteen  months  that  have  not  contained 
fully  0.35  per  cent,  of  carbon  and  1 per  cent,  of  manganese.  And 
probably  the  use  of  this  formula  will  considerably  ante-date  the 
time  mentioned.  These  rails  do  not  break  or  crush,  because  they 
were  laid  upon  a better  roadbed,  were  rolled  from  sounder  ingots, 
were  carefully  hot-straightened,  and,  if  I may  be  permitted  a Hi- 
bernianism,  were  cold-straightened  while  still  hot.  But  how  will 
they  wear  ? For  an  answer  to  that  we  must  wait. 

I have  endeavored  to  study  carefully  Dr.  Dudley’s  paper,  but 
have  failed  to  be  convinced  of  the  correctness  of  the  conclusions 
which  he  draws  from  the  chemical  analyses  and  physical  tests.  I 
think  I have  no  prejudice  in  this  matter.  The  best  formula  for  steel 
for  rails  is  as  earnestly  desired  by  me  as  by  any  consumer  of  such 
steel.  In  my  judgment  averages  in  such  investigations  are  exceed- 
ingly dangerous,  unless  made  from  an  immense  number  of  samples 
taken  from  metal  that  has  had  exactly  the -same  history.  By  this 
I mean,  the  different  samples  ought  to  have  been  blown  at  about 
the  same  temperature,  cast  under  the  same  conditions,  heated  alike, 
rolled  at  the  same  heat,  and  under  the  same  reductions,  hot  and 
cold  finished  alike,  placed  upon  the  same  roadbed,  and  given  the 
same  amount  and  kind  of  wear.  This  is  almost  an  impracticable 
proposition,  but  the  failure  to  fulfil  it,  can  only  be  compensated  by 
an  immense  number  of  other  samples. 

Some  of  us  told  Dr.  Dudley  before  that  his  twenty-five  samples 
were  too  few  upon  which  to  build  up  a theory,  and  it  seems  a 
little  ungenerous  to  make  the  same  charge  against  his  present 
sixty-four ; but  I must  do  it.  These  sixty-four  tests  are  not  taken 
from  rails  which  have  been  subjected  to  the  same  conditions ; on 
the  contrary,  “ sixteen  of  these  rails  were  taken  from  level  tangents 
and  sixteen  from  level  curves,  eight  from  the  high  side  and  eight 
from  the  low  side  of  the  curves.  Again,  sixteen  rails  were  taken 
from  grade  tangents  and  sixteen  from  grade  curves,  eight  from  the 
high  side  and  eight  from  the  low  side  of  these  curves.”  Asking 
for  so  great  a number  of  tests  means  a tremendous  amount  of  work 
and  patience,  but  Dr.  Dudley  has  taken  up  one  of  the  most  diffi- 
cult problems,  and  must  not  be  contented  with  a partial  investi- 
gation. It  took  some  of  us  a long  time  to  learn  how  to  make 
Bessemer  steel  at  all;  he  must  not  expect  to  be  able  to  so  easily 
teach  us  how  to  make  the  best. 

To  illustrate  why  I object  to  his  averages : I find  among  the 


8 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


rails  taken  from  a level  tangent  that  the  one  which  shows  the  least 
loss  in  section  and'  the  least  wear  per  million  tons  of  traffic  had 
carbon,  0.423;  phosphorus,  0.127;  silicon,  0.083;  manganese, 
0.708;  while  another  rail  presenting  within  three  of  the  worst  re- 
sults, had  carbon,  0.428 ; phosphorus,  0.109  ; silicon,  0.038 ; man- 
ganese, 0.870.  The  next  poorest  had  carbon,  0.452 ; phosphorus, 
0.144;  silicon,  0.037  ; and  manganese,  0.708, — the  manganese  being 
exactly  like  the  best.  The  poor  steel  had  also  very  slightly  the 
greatest  density.  The  difference  between  0.452  of  carbon,  and 
0.423  and  0.428  could  easily  be  caused  by  rolling  one  steel  at  a 
higher  heat  than  the  other.  Again,  on  the  low  side  of  level  curves 
I find  the  second'  best  rail  had  carbon,  0.454;  phosphorus,  0.145; 
silicon,  0.015  ; manganese,  0.726;  while  the  poorest  rail  had  carbon, 
0.497;  phosphorus,  0.136;  silicon,  0.062;  manganese,  0.724.  I 
cannot  now  believe  that  the  slight  difference  in  the  chemical  constitu- 
ents of  these  rails  caused  the  great  difference  in  their  wear.  If  such 
is  the  case,  then  I for  one  stand  appalled  at  the  difficulties  which 
surround  the  making  of  a perfect  rail. 

As  before  stated  averages  are  dangerous.  Dr.  Dudley  makes  up  a 
formula  from  the  averages  of  his  investigations,  but  admits  that  the 
silicon  percentage  is  disturbed  by  an  abnormal  piece  of  steel  No.  881. 
This  had  carbon,  0.483 ; phosphorus,  0.035 ; silicon,  0.480 ; manga- 
nese, 0.782 ; and  stands  eighth  in  sixteen  tests.  It  may  be  remem- 
bered that  in  the  discussion  at  the  Baltimore  meeting  in  February, 
1879,  I mentioned  a rail  then  in  the  track  of  the  Boston  and  Albany 
Railroad  that  contained  carbon,  0.360;  phosphorus,  0.124;  silicon, 
0.469;  manganese,  0.571 ; and  which  had  then  been  in  the  track 
five  years.  That  rail  is  still  in  service  and  in  good  condition.  Here 
we  have  two  rails  made  by  widely  separated  works,  laid  in  the 
tracks  of  railroads  hundreds  of  miles  apart;  one  giving  eleven  years 
and  one  month  of  service  and  then  not  worn  out,  but  on  the  con- 
trary selected  as  a “ slow- wearing  rail ; ” the  other  one  good  after 
over  seven  years  of  wear.  Will  we  take  the  average  composition 
of  these  rails  which  did  not  break,  nor  crush,  nor  rapidly  wear  out, 
and  assume  that  carbon,  0.420  ; phosphorus,  0.079  ; silicon,  0.474  ; 
and  manganese,  0.676  is  the  proper  formula  for  rail  steel?  If  not, 
why  not? 

Dr.  Dudley’s  averages  of  his  32  samples  of  good  wearing  rails 
gave  him  carbon,  0.334 ; phosphorus,  0.077;  silicon,  0.060;  man- 
ganese, 0.491.  If  that  formula  is  right,  stick  to  it.  In  fact  such 
a one  will  be  better  for  both  the  producer  and  consumer,  than 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


9 


the  compromise  which  Dr.  Dudley  recommends.  I think  every 
steel-maker  will  bear  me  out  in  saying  that  sound  steel  can  be  more 
easily  made  under  its  provisions  than  with  carbon  from  0.25  to 
0.35;  phosphorus,  0.10;  silicon,  0.04;  manganese  ranging  from 
0.30  to  0.40  aiming  at  0.35.  Theory  is  very  fascinating,  but  in 
practice  stubborn  facts  present  themselves,  and  with  steel  containing 
0.10  phosphorus,  and  not  more  than  0.35  manganese,  the  resulting 
ingots  would  be  very  unsound,  and  the  rail  mill  would  produce  an 
indefinite  number  of  imperfect  rails,  many  of  which  would  get  into 
service  in  defiance  of  the  most  careful  inspection ; the  result  being 
crushed  ends,  flat  places,  and  generally  unsatisfactory  rails.  If  low 
manganese  is  desired,  the  phosphorus  must  also  below;  0.10  per 
cent,  cannot  be  so  considered.  In  the  64  analyses  there  are  but  16 
with  the  manganese  as  low  as  0.40  and  under ; and  only  4 of  these 
have  the  phosphorus  above  0.085;  11  being  under  0.07  and  6 under 
0.05.  The  rails  having  less  than  0.30  carbon,  with  the  exception 
of  6,  were  made  over  12  years  ago,  and  of  these  6,  one  was  made 
8 years,  one  10  years,  and  four  about  11  years  ago. 

At  the  time  all  of  these  rails,  excepting  one,  were  made,  all 
steel  was  hammered,  the  blooming  mill  not  having  been  invented. 
Under  the  hammer  it  is  possible  to  coax  steel  into  fair-appearing 
blooms,  that  would  either  go  to  pieces  or  roll  very  badly  in  the 
blooming  mill.  When  the  latter  was  introduced  the  steel  makers 
had  only  at  their  command  recarburizers  poor  in  manganese  and 
high  in  phosphorus.  Moreover  the  American  irons  were  then  even 
much  higher  in  phosphorus  than  our  chemists  told  us.  Hence  a 
great  deal  of  very  poor  steel  was  made.  By  poor  I mean  unsound 
steel.  As  high  as  20  per  cent,  second  quality  or  defective  rails  was 
a common  run  of  work.  While  to-day  with  better  irons,  richer 
spiegels,  and  better  melting  furnaces,  we  rarely  exceed  1 per  cent., 
and  run  for  days  at  less  than  one-half  of  that  figure  and  this  on 
much  more  difficult  sections  than  railroad  engineers  formerly  re- 
quired. 

Just  here  let  me  ask  Dr.  Dudley  whether  he  gave  sufficient 
consideration  to  this  very  difference  of  section?  Examples  are 
presented  by  rails  902  and  903.  The  first  stands  at  the  head  of 
rails  from  the  high  side  of  curve  grade,  and  gave  upon  analysis: 
carbon,  0.322 ; phosphorus,  0.077  ; silicon,  0.026  ; manganese,  0.492. 
The  second  had  carbon,  0.355;  phosphorus,  0.108 ; silicon,  0.029; 
manganese,  0.490,  and  is  at  the  foot  of  the  list  with  but  2 years  11 
months  service,  while  the  first  had  7 years  11  months,  and  was  of 

2 


10 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


the  old  rounded  head  section,  while  the  poor  one,  with  almost  the 
same  chemical  analysis,  was  of  the  square  head  pattern. 

if,  as  suggested  by  Dr.  Dudley,  even  softer  rails  are  desirable, 
there  need  not  be  any  difficulty  in  filling  such  an  order.  I would 
be  perfectly  willing  to  contract  to  make  rails  containing  not  over, 
carbon,  0.15;  phosphorus,  0.08;  and  manganese,  0.50.  These  rails 
would  be  perfectly  homogeneous  and  stiffer  than  an  iron  rail  of  the 
same  section,  and  ought  therefore  to  hold  up  the  load.  The  rail 
makers  both  in  this  country  and  England  are  now  making  steel  con- 
taining much  more  manganese  than  formerly.  These  rails  are  going 
out  of  the  mills,  apparently  better  and  sounder  than  those  formerly 
made.  Time  only  will  demonstrate  whether  or  not  they  are  actually 
better. 

The  present  Troy  practice  is  to  use  irons  containing  the  least  phos- 
phorus, to  put  in  enough  carbon  to  make  strong  steel,  and  enough 
manganese  to  make  the  steel  roll  sound,  both  while  in  the  ingot  and 
the  bloom,  to  carefully  heat  the  ingots  and  resulting  blooms,  hot 
straighten  the  rails  so  as  to  leave  the  minimum  of  work  for  the  cold 
press,  which  does  its  work  while  the  steel  is  yet  hot.  And  we 
have  to  be  yet  convinced  by  the  wear  of  our  rails  that  this  practice 
is  wrong.  For  our  tests  we  cast  a four-inch  ingot  from  each  blow; 
this  is  hammered  into  a f-inch  bar,  which  when  cold  is  required  to 
bend  to  at  least  a |J  by  the  blows  of  a sledge,  this  bending  being  a 
much  severer  test  than  when  done  in  a press.  The  steel  is  also 
quenched  in  water  and  tested  for  temper.  Drillings  are  taken  from 
the  ingot  and  accurate  carbon  determinations  made. 

I prefer  this  plan  to  any  test  of  the  rail  ends.  To  be  perfectly 
conclusive,  such  tests  would  have  to  be  made  of  both  ends  of  the 
rail,  and  from  every  rail ; for  one  end  might  be  overheated,  and 
the  other  not.  Some  blooms  might  be  all  right,  and  the  rest  of  the 
heat  spoilt.  In  a mill  producing  say  9000  rails  per  week,  18,000 
rail-end  tests  would  be  no  inconsiderable  item,  particularly  if,  as 
Dr.  Dudley  proposes,  the  test-piece,  “12  inches  long,  1J  inch  wide, 
J inch  thick,”  is  to  be  slotted  from  the  web  of  the  rail.  He  would 
have  to  give  a lease  of  the  Altoona  shops  along  with  the  rail 
contract. 

Dr.  Dudley’s  theory  of  infinitesimal  teeth  is  interesting,  and,  if 
true,  I should  prefer  having  the  teeth  of  my  rack  so  strong  that 
they  would  neither  break  off  or  flatten  down. 

As  a matter  of  perhaps  some  interest,  I present  two  pieces  of  Troy 
rails,  cut  off  at  the  saws  from  two  rails,  not  in  the  same  heat,  and 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


11 


tested  without  knowing  anything  of  their  chemical  composition.  I 
had  these  pieces  separately  placed  upon  10-inch  bearings  under  a 
7-gross  ton  hammer,  a piece  of  2|-inch  round  iron  laid  upon  them 
as  a fuller,  and  the  hammer  allowed  to  fall  from  20  inches  above 
the  fuller,  which,  according  to  Haswell,  gave  a blow  of  67.75  gross 
tons.  The  pieces  were  then  turned  over,  the  fuller  placed  upon  the 
convex  surface,  and  the  hammer  allowed  to  fall  from  13  inches 
above  the  fuller,  giving  a blow  of  58.45  gross  tons.  You  will  see 
that  the  rails  do  not  show  any  signs  of  rupture,  and  their  color  at 
the  points  of  torture  prove  them  to  have  been  absolutely  cold  when 
the  test  was  made.  I think  these  rails  ought  to  be  reasonably  safe 
in  the  track.  As  you  see  by  this  piece  of  the  head  of  one  of  these 
rails,  I had  it  planed,  and  then  some  teeth  cut  in  it  by  a cold  chisel, 
and  one-half  of  them  pounded  down  with  a hammer.  The  teeth  of 
my  rack  did  not  break  off.  The  analyses  of  these  rails  subsequently 
made  are : 


I. 

II. 

Carbon,  ..... 

. 0.410 

0.380 

Silicon,  ..... 

. 0.050 

0.058 

Phosphorus,  .... 

. 0.086 

0.082 

Manganese,  .... 

. 0.942 

0.840 

In  conclusion,  I will  say  that  Dr.  Dudley’s  paper  as  a contribu- 
tion to  our  knowledge  of  steel  rails  is  valuable  and  interesting,  but 
I protest  against  his  conclusions  being  received  as  manufacturing  or 
commercial  axioms.  From  its  being  presented  in  the  form  of  a 
report  to  the  leading  railroad  of  the  country  from  one  of  its  trusted 
officers,  as  well  as  from  the  tone  of  the  concluding  deductions,  it  is 
liable  to  be  so  received  by  railroad  men.  If  any  railroad  com- 
pany desires  rails  made  under  either  of  Dr.  Dudley’s  formulas, 
and  are  willing  to  pay  a price  large  enough  to  cover  the  loss  in 
making  them,  well  and  good ; but  so  long  as  the  railmakers  are 
compelled  to  guarantee  the  wear  of  their  rails  for  a given  number  of 
years,  justice  requires  that  the  composition  of  the  steel  from  which 
these  rails  are  made  should  be  left  to  them. 

William  Sellers,  Philadelphia:  The  very  interesting  paper 
upon  the  wear  of  steel  rails  that  has  just  been  read  presents  the  record 
of  a series  of  investigations  that  are  extremely  valuable,  and  the  de- 
duction that  has  been  drawn  from  the  results  noted  seems  to  be  un- 
avoidable; the  tests,  however,  to  which  it  is  proposed  steel  rails  shall 
be  subjected  hereafter,  with  a view  to  determine  their  quality,  should 


12 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


have  our  careful  attention,  and  with  reference  to  these  I desire  to 
make  a few  suggestions. 

While  the  manufacture  of  soft  steel  was  yet  in  its  infancy  it  was 
believed  that  the  presence  of  phosphorus  in  any  notable  quantity 
was  very  deleterious,  in  fact  fatal  to  the  good  quality  of  this  pro- 
duct, and  the  greatest  care  was  exercised  to  procure  materials  in 
which  this  element  could  not  be  more  than  traced.  With  the  de- 
velopment of  this  art  it  has  been  found  that  larger  and  larger  pro- 
portions of  this  hurtful  ingredient  may  be  used,  providing  always 
corresponding  changes  in  the  chemical  composition  shall  be  made  to 
accord  therewith. 

It  is  perhaps  beside  the  point  to  inquire  whether  the  earlier  belief 
was  correct  or  not,  the  fact  remains  that  steel  is  now  produced 
which  contains  much  larger  proportions  of  phosphorus  than  would 
have  been  permitted  a very  few  years  ago,  and  that  this  steel  is  now 
considered  to  possess  qualities  which  fit  it  admirably  for  use  in  rails  ; 
moreover  it  is*  well  known  that  the  degree  of  heat  and  the  manipu- 
lation to  which  the  ingot  is  subjected  in  transforming  it  into  the 
finished  product  has  an  important  influence  in  determining  the  char- 
acteristics that  product  will  exhibit. 

These  facts  have  an  important  bearing  upon  the  question,  what 
shall  be  the  tests  which  are  to  determine  the  quality  we  desire  to 
attain.  If  the  engineer  is  to  specify  the  chemical  composition 
and  the  mode  or  process  of  manufacture  by  which  the  manufacturer 
must  work,  it  would  seem  that  improvement  in  the  art  must  to  a 
certain  extent  be  limited,  and  a vicious  system  would  be  intro- 
duced, injurious  alike  to  the  engineer  and  the  manufacturer.  The 
chemical  composition  has  no  value  to  the  engineer,  for  no  matter  what 
the  chemical  composition,  it  is  upon  the  physical  qualities  at  last 
that  he  must  rely  to  determine  whether  or  not  it  will  answer 
his  purpose  ; it  should  be  his  business  therefore  to  devise  such 
physical  tests  as  will  determine  absolutely  whether  or  not  the 
quality  that  he  desires  has  been  produced,  while  the  manufacturer 
should  be  left  free  to  make  such  chemical  combinations  or  adopt 
such  processes  of  manufacture  as  will  fulfil  the  requirements  of  the 
engineer.  It  may,  however,  be  questioned  whether  the  physical 
data  we  now  possess  will  enable  us  to  agree  upon  the  physical 
tests  requisite  to  demonstrate  the  quality,  but  if  this  is  admitted  it 
only  proves  that  further  physical  data  are  wanting,  for  the  quality  is 
finally  determined  by  use,  the  result  of  which  our  physical  data 
should  enable  us  to  predict.  Of  these  data  the  one  most  abundant  is 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


13 


the  ultimate  strength,  and  next  to  this  ductility,  bending,  shearing, 
punching,  torsion,  impact,  and  fatigue,  in  all  of  which,  except  the  last, 
abundant  facts  are  at  hand.  As  most  specifications  prescribe  a 
high  and  a low  limit  for  ultimate  strength,  it  would  seem  to  be  the 
prevalent  opinion  among  engineers  that  high  or  low  steel,  as  it  is 
technically  termed,  is  to  be  determined  by  its  ultimate  strength,  and 
it  becomes  important  at  this  stage  to  define  what  quality  it  is  that 
most  accurately  defines  this  term,  that  is  to  say,  does  it  consist  in 
high  or  low  ultimate  strength,  or  in  high  or  low  ductility  relatively 
to  its  ultimate  strength.  It  is  essential  for  all  structural  uses  that 
the  engineer  should  know  upon  what  ultimate  strength  he  can  rely, 
for  upon  this  all  his  calculations  must  be  based,  but  it  is  upon  duc- 
tility that  he  must  depend  for  safety,  the  measure  of  which  he  must 
determine;  after  which,  the  higher  the  ultimate  strength  he  can 
obtain  the  better  his  material  will  be  for  any  structural  purpose  ; that 
is  to  say,  with  a given  ductility  the  higher  the  ultimate  strength  of 
his  material,  the  safer  it  is  and  conversely,  with  a given  ultimate 
strength,  the  higher  the  ductility  the  safer  it  is.  High  ductility  and 
high  ultimate  strength  cannot  be  produced  except  with  the  most 
favorable  conditions,  both  as  to  chemical  composition  and  as  to  the 
mode  of  manufacture;  the  quality  is  therefore  to  be  ascertained  with 
most  certainty  by  determining  the  relation  of  the  one  to  the  other, 
and  for  the  same  reason  this  relation  would  seem  to  be  the  factor 
which  should  most  accurately  define  the  term  high  or  low,  as  applied 
to  steel ; and  the  requirements  simply  of  an  ultimate  strength  not 

less  than pounds  per  square  inch,  with  a ductility  not  less 

than per  cent,  would  at  once  determine  the  character  of  steel 

required  and  the  quality  of  it.  It  must  not  be  understood,  how- 
ever, that  the  determination  of  this  relation  is  the  sole  requisite  in 
determining  quality  for  every  purpose,  for  the  capacity  to  bear 
fatigue  and  shock  is  scarcely  less  important,  as  for  example,  the 
question  now  under  consideration ; and  although  it  is  probable  that 
the  material  which  exhibits  high  ultimate  strength  coupled  with  high 
ductility  will  prove  to  be  capable  of  enduring  the  most  fatigue  and 
shock,  we  cannot  affirm  that  there  is  any  definite  relation  between 
the  two,  in  fact  we  have  many  data  tending  to  show  that  such  a 
relation  does  not  exist. 

An  examination  of  the  data  which  Dr.  Dudley  has  tabulated  indi- 
cates that  to  establish  the  relation  between  ultimate  strength  and 
ductility  alone  would  be  insufficient  to  determine  the  wearing  quality 
of  rails,  so  that  these  data  must  be  supplemented  by  some  other ; this 


14 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


other,  I suggest,  should  be  that  of  fatigue  from  shock,  not  that  of 
simply  bending,  which  last  Dr.  Dudley  “ has  found  to  bear  a closer 
relation  to  the  loss  of  metal  per  million  tons  than  any  of  the  other 
tests.”  I take  exception  to  the  classification  of  this  test  as  one  of  the 
four  ways  in  which  a bending  test  could  be  applied.  A rail  bent  under 
the  drop  test,  and  one  bent  in  the  testing  machine  by  pressure  slowly 
applied,  would  not  be  subjected  to  the  same  character  of  strains. 
While  a drop  test  is  a bending  test  it  is  also  much  more;  the  same 
number  of  degrees  of  deflection  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other  would, 
I think,  represent  very  different  powers  of  resistance  in  the  material 
operated  upon.  With  the  same  weight  falling  from  the  same  height 
in  properly  constructed  guides,  the  same  effect  must  be  produced  with 
every  blow.  In  fact  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  how  any  other  form  of 
test  can  produce  more  uniform  effects  or  which  can  be  more  accurately 
measured  ; the  results  may  be  more  diverse  with  such  a test  than 
with  others  because  they  are  produced  by  pressure  and  shock, 
whereas  nearly  all  other  forms  of  testing  produce  their  results  by 
pressure  alone.  It  is  this  difference,  however,  which  commends  the 
drop  as  the  test  above  all  others  for  rails  as  being  more  analogous  to 
that  by  which  the  rail  is  tested  in  use,  and  we  should  be  well  satis- 
fied that  the  objections  urged  against  it  are  well  founded  before  we 
abandon  it  for  others  which  may  appear  to  offer  more  uniform  re- 
sults. It  may  well  be  that  uniform  results  obtained  by  a system  of 
testing  widely  different  from  that  we  require  our  material  to  sustain 
in  use,  may  have  small  value  for  determining  in  advance  the  effect 
of  that  use.  I am  thus  driven  to  the  conclusion  that  to  obtain  the 
relation  of  ductility  to  ultimate  strength,  together  with  the  capacity 
to  sustain  fatigue  from  shock  would  be  to  attain  to  absolute  certainty 
as  to  the  quality  in  an  engineering  sense. 

There  are,  however,  considerations  other  than  that  of  the  tests 
which  must  have  attention  before  adopting  a system  of  testing 
for  steel  rails,  and  as  to  these  I would  now  make  a few  suggestions. 
The  tests  required  to  determine  quality  in  the  directions  indicated 
are  well  understood,  but  simple  as  they  are,  the  time  that  must  be 
consumed  in  making  them,  would  result  in  serious  loss  to  the  manu- 
facturer if  his  mill  is  to  be  held  for  their  determination,  and  if  he 
proceeds  with  the  execution  of  his  order  in  advance  he  incurs  a 
serious  responsibility  in  assuming  the  risk  of  rejection  for  the  large 
product  that  would  be  turned  out  before  the  requisite  tests  could  be 
made.  While  the  cost  of  a test  for  ultimate  strength,  ductility,  and 
for  capacity  to  bear  fatigue  would  be  small,  the  large  number  of  such 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


15 


tests  that  would  be  necessary  to  establish  the  quality  of  an  ordinary 
order  for  steel  rails  would  be  a serious  item,  and  as  every  item  of  cost 
must  be  eventually  borne  by  the  consumer  it  is  important  for  the 
railway  companies  to  adopt  a regular  system  for  testing  their  rails 
that  shall  not  only  be  the  most  expeditious  but  the  least  expensive. 
For  the  purpose  of  inspection,  therefore,  it  would  seem  to  be  sufficient 
to  adopt  a system  that  would  be  simply  an  indication  as  to  the 
qualities  desired,  without  subjecting  the  parties  interested  to  the  cost 
and  delay  which  must  result  from  exhaustive  and  thorough  tests,  and 
upon  these  indications  the  rails  might  be  accepted.  This  would  seem 
to  accord  with  the  best  foreign  practice,  as  illustrated  by  the  very 
admirable  paper  upon  “Rail  Specifications  and  Rail  Inspection  in 
Europe,”  by  C.  P.  Sandberg,  C.E.,  read  at  the  Lake  Superior 
meeting,  August,  1880.  There  are  two  tests  which  would  give  these 
indications  with  great  accuracy,  both  of  which  could  be  applied 
without  the  expense  and  delay  incident  to  preparation  of  specimens, 
and  both  of  which  require  comparatively  inexpensive  machinery. 
These  are  the  registering  punch  and  the  drop  test.  The  former  is  a 
special  tool  which  could  be  applied  upon  the  crop  ends  and  could 
be  portable;  the  latter  is  too  well  known  to  require  description,  but 
its  indications,  if  carefully  noted  would,  I believe,  be  the  most  val- 
uable of  the  two,  but  in  conjunction  with  the  punch  they  should  be 
conclusive.  The  punching  test  would  have  this  advantage,  that  by 
its  use  an  inexpensive  indication  could  be  had  of  the  quality  of  every 
rail.  The  suggestion  that  this  test  should  be  applied  upon  the  fish- 
plate holes  has  probably  prevented  its  introduction  heretofore,  first, 
because  such  holes  are  not  now  punched,  and  second,  because  to 
make  such  registration  every  manufacturer  would  have  to  procure  a 
registering  punch,  and  this  would  be  difficult  to  apply  upon  existing 
machines.  If  this  tool  should  be  recognized  as  a part  of  the  inspec- 
tor’s outfit  and  specially  adapted  to  his  needs,  it  might  soon  come 
into  general  use  if  care  was  used  to  maintain  the  punches  and  dies 
in  good  condition. 

In  conclusion,  I suggest  that  if  the  physical  tests  are  to  be  supple- 
mented by  chemical  analysis  the  specification  for  this  analysis  should 
not  be  complete ; that  is  to  say,  in  place  of  giving  the  proportions  of 
carbon,  phosphorus,  silicon,  and  manganese,  a maximum  limit  should 
be  fixed  respectively  for  phosphorus,  silicon,  and  manganese  only, 
leaving  the  carbon  to  be  varied  by  the  manufacturer,  so  that  he  may 
properly  be  required  to  furnish  material  that  will  fulfil  the  physical 
conditions,  for  it  is  evident  that  if  the  engineer  defines  the  chemical 


16 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


composition,  he  cannot  reasonably  ask  the  manufacturer  to  guarantee 
that  this  composition  shall  give  certain  physical  results. 

W.  R.  Jones,  Pittsburgh,  Pa.  : The  question  that  naturally 
occurs  to  me  is  this:  Has  Dr.  Dudley  in  his  investigations  been 
aiming  to  prove  a theory,  or  has  he  been  guided  by  an  earnest  desire 
to  discover  what  are  the  proper  elements  in  the  composition  of  a 
good-wearing  steel  rail  ? 

Unfortunately,  for  correct  chemical  information,  he  has  omitted 
in  his  analyses  two  very  important  elements, — sulphur  and  copper. 
Now,  before  we  will  even  begin  to  admit  the  correctness  of  Dr. 
Dudley’s  conclusions  and  the  formula  he  prescribes,  we  will  at  the 
start  question  the  propriety  of  any  chemist  or  scientist  prescribing  a 
formula  for  making  steel  when  he  has  ignored  such  important  ele- 
ments as  sulphur  and  copper.  I,  for  one,  will  not  accept  any  such 
formula. 

Are  we  sure,  or  is  Dr.  Dudley  sure,  that  the  chemical  analyses 
embodied  in  his  paper  are  correct?  This  may  seem  a presumptuous 
question,  yet,  with  my  experience  with  chemists,  I naturally  doubt 
the  correctness  of  the  analyses,  and,  before  I will  accept  them  as 
correct,  I will  ask  that  comparative  tests  of  phosphorus  and  man- 
ganese be  made  by  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad  chemists  and  the 
chemists  of  the  leading  steel-works  in  the  country.  Let  us  first 
verify  the  correctness  of  the  analyses  before  we  consider  the  con- 
clusions. I can  enumerate  a great  number  of  instances  in  which 
chemists  have  differed  very  widely  in  their  determinations  of  phos- 
phorus and  manganese.  A prominent  iron  firm  made  a contract 
with  the  Edgar  Thomson  Steel  Company  to  deliver  pig  metal  guar- 
anteed to  be  between  0.07  and  0.08  phosphorus ; an  analysis  by 
our  chemist  resulted  in  phosphorus  0.148  and  0.152, — a rather 
startling  difference ! Again,  a sample  bar  of  steel,  in  which  our 
chemist  reported  phosphorus  0.11,  was  tested  by  a chemist  of  an- 
other Bessemer  works,  and  his  determinations  were  phosphorus 
between  0.07  and  0.08.  A leading  engineering  establishment  of 
Pittsburgh  bought  iron  claimed  by  a chemical  analysis  to  contain 
0.08  phosphorus ; our  Mr.  Ford  found  phosphorus  0.145.  A chem- 
ist connected  with  an  open-hearth  works  reported  manganese  in  a 
piece  of  steel,  1.14;  in  a second  determination  from  the  same  piece 
of  steel,  by  the  same  chemist,  manganese  was  reported  0.43.  The 
chemist  was  kept  in  ignorance  of  the  fact  that  both  samples  were 
from  the  same  piece  of  steel.  Two  determinations  for  manganese 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


17 


were  made  by  the  same  chemist  from  a piece  of  steel ; he  reported 
manganese  0.61  and  0.58.  Oar  chemist,  in  the  same  steel,  reported 
manganese  0.324  and  0.303.  I could  give  innumerable  instances 
of  the  wide  difference  in  chemists*  determinations  of  phosphorus  and 
manganese.  I think  I have  cited  sufficient  cases  to  sustain  the  po- 
sition I have  assumed,  viz.,  that  before  the  determinations  made  by 
Dr.  Dudley’s  assistants  are  accepted  as  being  correct  they  should  be 
verified  by  chemists  of  greater  experience. 

I find  on  a close  examination  of  the  Doctor’s  paper  that  he  has 
taken  no  notice  whatever  of  the  increased  weight  of  cars,  increased 
weight  of  locomotives,  with  increased  speed,  in  his  tonnage  calcu- 
lations. Now,  there  is  a vast  difference  between  the  tonnage  of 
10  to  12  tons  in  an  ordinary  freight  car  with  eight  wheels  passing 
over  rails  at  a moderate  speed,  and  15  to  20  tons  on  the  same  num- 
ber of  wheels  at  an  increased  speed.  Since  1874  the  Pennsylvania 
Railroad  Company  has  been  steadily  increasing  the  weight  of  both 
engines  and  cars.  The  duty  to  which  rails  are  now  subjected  I 
believe  is  fully  60  per  cent,  greater  than  that  before  the  year  1874. 
On  looking  over  the  paper,  we  find  a number  of  rails,  classed  as 
good-wearing  rails,  that  have  for  years  been  subjected  to  compara- 
tively light  tonnage  on  a wheel-tonnage  basis,  compared  with  a great 
number  of  rails  classed  as  fast-wearing  rails,  which  in  some  cases  I 
find  have  had  passing  over  them  nearly  twice  the  number  of  tons 
per  month,  and  all  on  heavier  wheel  tonnage. 

As  an  illustration  I cite  rail  No.  937,  with  the  following  analysis : 
carbon, 0.454;  silicon,  0.015;  phosphorus, 0.145;  manganese,  0.726; 
with  only  2 per  cent,  elongation.  In  accordance  with  the  deduc- 
tions and  formula  this  should  be  a very  bad  rail,  yet  on  close  exam- 
ination I find  that  this  rail  has  been  subjected  to  a monthly  ton- 
nage of  747,628  tons.  If  we  examine  the  rail  No.  929,  which 
was  laid  within  two  miles  of  rail  937,  we  find : carbon,  0.235 ; 
silicon,  0.080;  phosphorus,  0.055;  manganese,  0.300 ; elongation, 
24  per  cent.  This  rail  was  subjected  to  a monthly  tonnage  of  only 
381,235  tons,  while  rail  No.  937  was  subjected  to  96  per  cent,  more 
monthly  tonnage,  and  yet  rail  No.  929  is  classed  as  a good  rail. 
If  we  assume  that  50  per  cent,  more  loaded  cars  pass  east  to  Phila- 
delphia than  pass  west  from  Philadelphia,  we  find  the  wheel  tonnage 
assumes  a very  important  aspect  in  determining  the  wearing  quali- 
ties of  rails.  Again,  the  bad  rail  was  in  the  track  forty  months, 
and  only  shows  a wear  of  of  an  inch  in  vertical  section,  and  has 

3 


18 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


been  in  the  track  since  the  advent  of  heavier  engines  and  heavier 
cars;  while  rail  No.  929  has  had  the  advantage  of  at  least  seven 
years  of  comparatively  light  traffic  on  light-wheel  tonnage.  The 
question  which  of  these  two  rails  has  been  subjected  to  the  greatest 
amount  of  wheel  tonnage  I leave  to  some  one  to  calculate  who  has 
more  time  to  devote  to  this  subject  than  I have. 

In  regard  to  the  method  proposed  by  Dr.  Dudley  to  test  the  rails 
at  the  works,  I can  only  say  I much  prefer  the  methods  suggested 
by  Mr.  Sandberg,  in  his  paper  read  before  the  Institute  at  the 
Lake  Superior  meeting,  with  this  slight  modification,  viz. : I would 
subject  a 50  and  52  pound  rail  to  a drop-test  of  1800  pounds,  falling 
a distance  of  14  feet  on  the  rail,  on  supports  3 feet  apart;  for  a 54 
to  5G  pound  rail,  16  feet  drop;  for  a 56  to  58  pound  rail,  18  feet 
drop;  for  a 58  to  60  pound  rail,  20 feet  drop;  and  so  on  in  the  same 
ratio.  I would  also  adhere  to  the  test-bar,  drawn  out  from  the  head 
of  the  rail  down  to  1 inch  square,  then  placed  under  a steam-hammer 
and  bent  through  an  angle  of  110°,  the  distance  between  centres  of 
supports  of  the  bar  to  be  from  10  to  12  inches.  Dr.  Dudley  may 
think  these  tests  crude;  I believe  them  to  be  simple,  thorough, 
effective,  and  reliable,  and  in  this  I fully  concur  in  the  views  of 
Mr.  Sandberg. 

If  Dr.  Dudley  and  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad  authorities  believe 
their  deductions  are  correct,  let  them  have  rails  made  in  accordance 
with  the  Doctor’s  first  formula, — phosphorus,  0.077,  carbon,  0.334, 
silicon,  0.060,  manganese,  0.491, — and  add  to  it,  the  less  sulphur  and 
copper  the  better,  and,  as  a matter  of  course,  pay  the  difference  in 
price  involved  in  the  difference  in  the  price  of  metals;  but  when 
Dr.  Dudley  attempts  to  formulate  a rule  to  govern  the  steelmakers, 
based  on  his  knowledge,  I,  for  one,  decidedly  object;  and  I frankly 
tell  him  that  he  is  opposing  all  the  researches  and  investigations 
of  the  best  chemists  and  metallurgists,  both  here  and  abroad. 

I have  serious  and  grave  doubts  if  steel  made  in  accordance  with 
his  second  formula  would  give  a good  record  in  the  track.  I ex- 
perimented on  this  formula  in  attempting  to  fill  an  order.  Mr. 
Sandberg  in  his  paper  refers  to  the  filling  of  an  order  of  2500  tons 
on  the  same  formula,  and  my  experience  was  the  same  as  his.  The 
ingot  was  a conglomerate  mass  of  honeycombs.  It  made  bad  blooms, 
and  I do  not  believe  it  made  good  rails.  The  rails  are  now  in  the 
tracks  of  the  West  Pennsylvania  road,  and  if  they  do  prove  to  be 
good  rails,  I shall  be  very  much  surprised. 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


19 


William  Metcalf,  Pittsburg,  Pa.  : In  rising  to  discuss  Dr. 
Dudley’s  paper,  I feel  somewhat  as  I did  at  the  Baltimore  meeting 
— that  a “crucible”  man  has  no  right  to  interfere  in  a “Bessemer” 
discussion ; yet  having  read  the  paper  very  carefully,  I feel  impelled 
to  say  something,  for  two  reasons : First,  because  I believe  Dr.  Dud- 
ley is  entirely  on  the  right  track,  and  having  undertaken  and  partly 
accomplished  a great  work,  he  is  entitled  to  the  help  of  all  who 
have  experience  in  these  matters;  and  second,  because  the  data  given 
force  me  to  concur  in  Captain  Jones’s  opinion  that  the  analyses  are 
incomplete,  since  they  ignore  sulphur,  copper,  nitrogen,  and  possibly 
other  injurious  elements. 

In  an  experience  of  fourteeen  years,  and  with  probably  more  than 
a hundred  tests,  we  have  never  found  the  chemistry  and  the  physics 
of  crucible  steel  to  disagree.  If  in  any  case  a disagreement  has  ap- 
peared, it  has  been  our  invariable  custom  to  go  all  over  our  physical 
tests  with  great  care,  and  if  we  found  no  error,  then  to  refer  the 
matter  back  to  the  chemist  who  has  invariably  found  some  unex- 
pected element  to  account  for  the  trouble. 

It  is  only  just  to  the  chemist  to  say  here,  that  ordinarily  he  is 
only  expected  to  determine  phosphorus,  silicon,  sulphur.  Generally 
the  metals,  with  the  exception  of  manganese,  are  not  looked  for, 
although  a watch  is  usually  kept  for  copper  and  arsenic.  Further, 
in  most  cases  we  have  found  our  own  work  more  liable  to  be  faulty 
than  the  chemist’s. 

Having  arrived  then  at  such  a degree  of  experience  that  we  can 
predict  the  analysis  from  our  tests,  or  our  tests  from  the  analysis, 
with  almost  absolute  certainty,  I can  see  no  reason  why  the  same 
results  may  not  be  attained  in  the  Bessemer  practice.  But  two 
things  are  essential,  neither  of  which  we  have  here;  first,  complete 
analyses;  and  second,  a record  of  the  nature  of  the  blow,  the  heat  at 
which  the  ingots  were  bloomed,  and  the  rails  finished, — in  short,  a 
complete  history  of  the  manufacture. 

This  latter  is  quite  as  essential  as  accurate  and  complete  analyses. 
Dr.  Dudley  ignores  sulphur  and  copper  on  fair  enough  grounds  com- 
mercially speaking,  but  when  he  announces  so  grave  a conclusion  as 
he  has  reached,  in  a scientific  way,  the  omission  of  any  elements  that 
may  affect  the  conclusion  is  hardly  justifiable.  His  differences  of 
phosphorus  units,  which  I must  term  units  of  rottenness  as  far  as 
phosphorus  is'  concerned,  and  which  I am  sorry  he  did  not  name 

Units  of  Alloys ,” — are  very  small,  and  if  sulphur  and  copper  had 
been  included  they  might  have  upset  his  conclusions  altogether.  The 


20 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


omission  of  nitrogen  is  not  to  be  criticised  in  the  same  way,  because 
it  has  not  been  usual  to  regard  nitrogen  in  testing  steels,  yet  I am 
forced  to  believe  that  nitrogen  plays  a very  important  part  in  Bes- 
semer steel. 

We  had  occasion  recently  to  test  some  of  the  finest  Bessemer  steel 
that  is  made,  in  order  to  ascertain  how  far  the  Bessemer  people  were 
encroaching  on  the  domain  of  the  crucible  steel  manufacturers.  In 
the  accompanying  table  are  the  analyses  of  the  Bessemer  steel  re- 
ferred to,  two  samples  of  the  very  best  foreign  crucible  steel,  and 
one  of  the  best  American  crucible  steel. 


Kinds  of  steel. 

i 

Carbon. 

Phos- 

phorus. 

Silicon. 

Sulphur. 

Man- 

ganese. 

Copper. 

Bessemer 

0.400 

1.295 

0.862 

0.960 

0.027 

0.020 

0.005 

0.021 

0.003 

0.009 

0.007 

0.033 

trace. 

trace. 

none. 

trace. 

Foreign  crucible j 

American  crucible 

0.050 

0.077 

0.0013  | 

All  three  of  the  crucible  steels  were  of  exceptionally  good  quality. 
It  will  be  observed  that  according  to  the  analysis,  the  Bessemer  steel 
should  have  been  equally  good.  Upon  a careful  test  of  an  0.80  car- 
bon billet  it  proved  to  be  thoroughly  worthless. 

The  case  was  then  referred  to  Professor  Langley,  and  he  attributed 
the  trouble  to  oxygen,  and  predicted  that  if  we  would  melt  a 0.40 
carbon  billet  with  a little  ferromanganese  to  remove  the  oxygen  and 
bring  up  the  carbon  to  0.80,  and  also  give  a little  more  silicon  which 
the  steel  would  take  from  the  crucible,  that  we  would  have  a steel 
equal  to  the  others  given  above.  To  be  sure  of  our  work,  we  melted 
the  billet,  the  analysis  of  which  is  given  above,  and  produced  an 
ingot  of  about  0.80  carbon,  as  near  as  the  eye  could  determine,  and 
that  is  within  .03  in  such  high  steels.  The  remelted  Bessemer  steel 
was  just  as  bad  as  the  other,  and  of  this  we  assured  ourselves  by  the 
most  careful  and  repeated  tests. 

Now  we  know  oxygen  was  not  the  cause  of  the  fault,  for  if  it  had 
been,  the  ferromanganese  would  have  removed  it.  In  the  Bessemer 
manufacture  immense  volumes  of  nitrogen  are  blown  through  the 
molten  mass,  and  by  the  evidence  of  all  of  the  most  eminent 
chemists  who  have  examined  the  subject,  we  know  that  nitrogen 
does  unite  with  iron,  that  the  compound  is  brilliantly  lustrous, 
hard,  brittle,  and  even  friable,  and  that  it  will  harden  like  steel. 
We  also  know  that  there  is  a peculiar  lustre  in  all  Bessemer  steel, 
which  makes  it  easily  distinguishable  by  an  expert  from  crucible  or 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


21 


open-hearth  steel,  provided  none  of  them  have  been  overheated.  Is 
it  not  more  than  probable  then,  that  nitrogen  is  entitled  to  far  more 
serious  attention  than  it  has  yet  received  ? 

Dr.  Dudley  classes  carbon  with  phosphorus,  silicon,  and  manga- 
nese in  making  up  his  units,  and  he  may  be  correct  in  his  make-up 
in  his  relative  values  of  each,  but  I cannot  see  how  he  has  proved  his 
formula,  nor  how  it  is  to  be  disproved  with  our  present  knowledge. 

While  maintaining  that  carbon  in  steel  is  the  great  friend  of  the 
manufacturer  and  the  only  fit  alloy  of  iron,  I must  admit  that  when 
it  is  present  in  quantity  with  phosphorus,  silicon,  manganese,  or 
sulphur  in  quantity,  it  vitalizes  and  makes  more  active  all  of  the 
bad  qualities  of  these  elements,  and  therefore  if  Dr.  Dudley  must 
have  the  quantities  of  these  elements  in  his  rails  which  he  permits 
in  his  formula,  he  is  quite  right  in  saying  that  the  softest  rails  ought 
to  wear  the  best.  In  regard  to  the  wearing  of  wire  dies  we  have 
found 


Carbon 

1.37. 


Tungsten. 

0.78. 


too  soft,  i.  e.,  it  wore  too  easily.  Also  steel  of  the  composition 


Carbon, 

1.7 


Silicon, 

0.20 


Sulphur, 
0 091 


Manganese, 

0.387 


was  too  soft.  The  best  foreign  dies  contained 


Carbon, 

2.89 


Silicon, 

0.14 


Sulphur, 

0.031 


Manganese, 

0.26 


Phosphorus, 

0.02 


Phosphorus, 

0.02 


and  equally  good  and  entirely  satisfactory  homemade  steel  con- 
tained 


Carbon, 

2.37 


Silicon, 

0.20 


Sulphur, 

0.091 


Manganese, 

0.18 


Phosphorus, 

0.03 


In  this  case  good  wear  depends  upon  high  carbon. 

In  steel  rolls,  in  which  we  have  had  some  experience,  we  have 
found  that  very  soft  rolls  of  about  0.30  carbon  wore  too  fast  from 
excessive  flow,  taking  the  shape  shown  in  the  accompanying  cut, 
the  overflow  sometimes  amounting  to  more  than  half  an  inch.  This 
cuts  away  the  brasses  and  involves  much  redressing.  Rolls  of  about 
0.70  carbon  made  from  the  same  iron,  neither  flow  nor  crack  to  any 
serious  extent,  and  will  do  two  to  three  times  as  much  work  as  the 
softer  rolls. 

We  know  that  steel  flows  under  pressure,  that  the  milder  the  steel 
the  easier  it  will  flow,  and  the  easier  it  will  shear;  yet  in  the  paper 
under  discussion  flow  is  disregarded  entirely,  although  there  is  plain 
evidence  of  it  in  many  of  the  sections  given.  Low  shearing  stress  i9 


Axis  of  Roll 


22 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


advised  as  conducive  to  high  wear,  while  it  would  seem 
plain  that  chilled  flanges  must  act  as  admirable  shears 
to  trim  off  “ flowed 99  edges. 

Dr.  Dudley  says  low  phosphorus  units  ought  to  give 
the  best  wear,  and  so  they  ought.  He  proceeds  to  prove 
it  by  grouping  the  32  rails  of  least  wear,  and  the  32 
rails  of  most  wear  in  two  groups,  and  taking  a mean  of 
their  analyses.  By  a happy  accident  this  mean  sustains 
his  view,  or  perhaps  it  would  be  fairer  to  say,  from  this 
accident  he  draws  his  conclusions.  These  groups  consist 
of  all  sorts  of  rails,  of  different  make,  different  conditions 
of  wear  and  different  tonnages.  Would  it  not  be  fairer 
to  compare  rails  from  the  same  part  of  the  track,  sub- 
jected to  the  same  conditions  of  wear,  of  the  same  ton- 
nage, and  presumably  of  the  same'  make?  Arranging 
the  64  rails  under  consideration  in  this  way  by  means  of 
the  history  given,  I find  30  groups  consisting  of  twos, 
threes,  and  fours.  Comparing  the  phosphorus  units  and 
wear  per  million  tons  as  given  in  the  ta*ble,  I find  that 
in  twelve  groups  the  softer  rails  have  shown  the  least 
wear,  while  in  eighteen  groups  the  harder  rails  show  the 
least  wear. 

This  gives  18  against  Dr.  Dudley  to  12  for  him,  and 
it  seems  as  if  this  mode  of  comparison  were  the  fairer, 
if  the  presumption  is  correct,  that  the  rails  of  these  dif- 
ferent groups  were  of  the  same  make  in  each  group, 
because  in  such  case  the  chances  are  that  the  physical 
conditions  due  to  modes  of  manipulation  in  manufacture, 
were  more  nearly  the  same  than  they  could  possibly  be 
in  the  more  general  average  given  in  the  table. 

I would  like  to  ask  Dr.  Dudley  to  relieve  us,  if  he 
can,  of  a term  which  he  has  introduced  into  his  papers 
and  specifications,  and  which,  for  the  sake  of  harmony, 
ought,  I think,  to  be  obliterated.  I refer  to  the  word 
“ hardener.”  This  is  a term  properly  applied  to  any 
substance  contained  in  steel,  for  anything  mixed  with 
iron  will  make  it  harder.  But  carbon  is  the  great  “ hard- 
ener,” and  produces  all  of  the  wonderful  and  useful  prop- 
erties in  steel  with  which  we  are  familiar,  and  of  the 
nature  of  which  we  know  so  little.  Carbon,  then,  ought 
to  be  distinguished  as  the  hardener,  and  all  other  com- 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS, 


23 


ponents  should  be  known  by  some  other  name.  If  not,  we  shall 
have  quack  steelmakers  coming  out  with  more  silicon  steel,  phos- 
phorous steel,  sulphur  steel,  and  the  like.  And  why  not?  Are 
they  not  all  hardeners,  and  is  any  one  better  than  another. 

This  is  a serious  matter,  for  we  have  too  much  duplication  of  mean- 
ings now.  For  instance,  if  you  go  to  a founder  and  ask  if  h 
has  a chill  to  make  a certain  size  of  die  or  roll,  he  asks,  in  reply, 
how  much  chill  you  want,  and  you  tell  him,  say,  half  an  inch  or  an 
inch,  as  the  case  may  be.  Then  he  asks  if  you  want  a tough  chill, 
or  a mild  chill,  or  a hard  chill.  Would  not  an  outsider  be  utterly 
puzzled  to  know  what  a chill  was? 

Again  a steelmaker  talks  of  temper,  and  refers  to  steel  of  0.30, 
0.40,  or  1.00  carbon,  as  it  may  happen;  and  a steel-user  talks  of 
temper,  and  means  a yellow,  or  brown,  or  blue  color,  left  on  his  steel 
after  it  is  tempered.  I once  travelled  many  hundreds  of  miles  to  see 
about  a steel  trouble.  A buyer  had  sent  back  a shear-knife  which 
would  not  cut.  Not  waiting  till  the  knife  was  received,  I started 
off,  and  asked  my  partner  to  telegraph  me  his  opinion  after  he  had 
received  the  blade.  We  were  both  sure  it  had  been  burned.  After 
my  arrival  on  the  scene  and  finding  a man  in  real  trouble,  and  a 
great  temper,  a message  came  in  these  words,  “Temper  too  high; 
will  send  another  bar/7  Greatly  pleased,  and  thinking  my  way 
plain,  in  an  evil  moment  I showed  the  message  to  my  troubled 
friend,  who  interpreted  it  to  mean  that  he  had  improperly  treated 
the  steel,  and  the  indignation  created  w7as  as  profound  as  it  was 
unexpected. 

Who,  then,  can  define  steel  ? An  International  Committee  of  this 
Institute  and  many  others  have  wrestled  with  the  question,  and  yet 
to-day  there  is  a heavy  suit  pending  in  the  United  States  courts,  all 
turning  upon  the  question  whether  steel  is  steel  or  iron. 

Now  we  are  threatened  with  the  war  of  the  “ hardeners/’  and  the 
contemplation  of  another  complication  in  our  nomenclature  is  no 
joke  for  the  steelmakers;  and  in  their  behalf  I appeal  to  Dr.  Dud- 
ley to  relieve  us  before  it  is  too  late. 

In  conclusion,  allow  me  to  say  that  I hope  my  remarks  will  not 
be  regarded  as  antagonistic  to  Dr.  Dudley’s  great  work,  for  I could 
have  no  possible  reason  for  entering  the  lists  as  an  antagonist;  and, 
on  the  contrary,  I decidedly  agree  with  him  that  the  chemistry  of 
steel  is  an  important  factor  in  its  manufacture,  and  chemistry  and 
physics  must  go  together  if  results  of  any  value  are  to  be  reached ; 
and  I firmly  believe  that  eventually  all  engineers  will  know  how 


24 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


to  make  and  to  appreciate  chemical  specifications.  I therefore  feel 
that  we  should  all  contribute  all  we  know  or  think  on  the  subject, 
and  I hope  these  remarks  will  be  considered  a thoroughly  sympa- 
thetic criticism. 


LETTER  FROM  WILLIAM  R.  HART. 

I was  this  morning  an  interested  listener  to  the  remarks  of  Mr. 
Ashbel  Welch  in  regard  to  his  designing  a new  section  for  steel  rails, 
in  1866  ; and  for  the  sake  of  the  truth  of  history,  and  in  order  to  give 
the  credit  to  an  American  (and  where  it  rightfully  belongs)  of  de- 
signing the  first  section  for  steel  rails,  which  was  intelligently 
adapted  to  that  material,  I beg  to  state  the  following  facts: 

On  the  14th  of  August,  1866,  Mr.  Ashbel  Welch  gave  me  an 
order  for  200  tons  of  steel  rails,  to  be  made  for  the  Camden  and  Amboy 
Railroad,  from  a section  designed  by  him.  A copy  of  this  section 
I append  herewith. 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


25 


Messrs.  John  Brown  & Co.,  of  Sheffield,  for  whom  we  were  then 
agents,  at  first  declined  to  roll  these  rails,  owing  to  the  thinness  of 
the  flange,  but  subsequently  accepted  this  order.  In  principle,  as  I 
think  you  will  see  from  the  section,  this  pattern  was  similar  to  what 
is  now  known  as  the  Sandberg  section,  having  a large  amount  of 
metal  in  the  head,  and  without  superfluous  weight  in  the  stem  and 
base.  This  section  was  put  upon  our  book,  with  the  title  “Ashbel 
Welch  section and  this  name  was  also  rolled  upon  the  stem  of  the 
rails.  We  sold  afterward  large  quantities  of  these  rails  under  this 
title  to  the  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore  Railroad  Company,  as  well 
as  to  the  Camden  and  Amboy  Railroad  Company. 

I make  this  statement  in  justice  to  Mr.  Welch,  who  ought  to  have 
the  credit  of  designing  a section  which  had  much  to  do  with  making 
steel  rails  a success.  At  the  time  Mr.  Welch  designed  this  section  it 
was  quite  a new  departure,  and  as  our  old  section-book  shows  it  was 
very  different  from  any  of  the  sections  which  up  to  that  time  had 
been  ordered  by  any  of  the  railroad  companies. 

I shall  be  very  glad  if  this  fact  can  be  recorded  upon  the  minutes 
of  the  Institute,  and  remain, 

Yours  very  truly, 

William  R.  Hart, 

Philadelphia,  February  17th,  1881.  Agent,  Naylor  § Co. 


LETTER  FROM  R.  H.  SAYRE,  BETHLEHEM,  PA. 

....  The  subject  is  one  of  great  interest  in  every  point  of  view 
to  railroad  managers  and  steel-rail  makers.  It  has  occurred  to  me 
that  if  in  this  connection  your  society  would  take  up  the  matter  of 
the  shape  or  section  of  steel  rails  and  the  form  of  joint,  and  be  able 
to  arrive  at  such  form  for  different  weight  of  rails  as  you  could 
recommend  to  the  railroads  of  this  country  with  a view  of  obtaining 
uniformity,  it  would  be,  in  case  of  adoption,  of  great  value  both  to 
the  railroads  and  makers  of  rails. 

My  idea  is  that  if  both  your  society  and  that  of  the  civil  en- 
gineers should  join  in  the  adoption  of  templates  and  their  recom- 
mendation, it  would  be  more  likely  to  have  the  desired  effect. 

Yours  truly, 

Robert  H.  Sayre. 


4 


26 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


William  Kent,  Pittsburgh,  Pa.  The  steel  manufacturers  of 
this  country  must  ever  be  grateful  to  Dr.  Dudley  for  his  painstaking 
and  conscientious  endeavor  to  establish  the  relation  between  the 
chemical  analysis  and  the  wearing  capacity  of  steel  rails.  They  must 
thank  him  for  the  vast  array  of  facts  he  presents,  and  especially 
for  having  given  them  sixty-four  analyses  with  which  to  combat 
his  own  conclusions  and  to  establish  their  own,  which  are  entirely 
opposite  to  his. 

In  Dr.  Dudley’s  discussion  of  his  former  investigation,  at  the 
Pittsburgh  meeting,  he  said,  “If  you  do  not  like  my  conclusions, 
draw  your  own  conclusions.”  I have  studied  his  last  paper  as  thor- 
oughly as  the  limited  time  since  I received  it  would  admit,  and 
have  drawn  some  conclusions  which  I will  first  state,  and  then  at- 
tempt to  demonstrate. 

Briefly  stated,  my  conclusions  are : 1st,  That  as  far  as  these  64 
analyses  reveal  anything  of  service  to  rail  makers  and  consumers 
they  do  reveal,  or  seem  to  reveal,  that  within  the  following  chemical 
and  physical  limits,  viz. : 

Carbon, 0.20  to  0.60 

Phosphorus, 0.026  to  0.145 

Silicon,  .......  0.015  to  0.480 

Manganese, 0.252  to  0.880 

Phosphorous  units, 20.8  to  5.72 

Bending  weight, 2270  lbs.  to  4260  lbs. 

Deflection, 13°  to  190° 

or  in  other  words  within  the  limits  of  nearly  the  whole  range  of  the 
chemical  and  bending  tests  of  these  64  rails,  the  wearing  capacity 
bears  no  relation  at  all  to  carbon,  to  phosphorus,  to  silicon,  to  man- 
ganese, to  phosphorus  units,  to  bending  weight  or  to  deflection ; or 
if  there  is  any  relation  between  the  wearing  capacity  and  these  six 
or  seven  variables,  it  is  so  obscured  by  the  action  of  other  causes  or 
variables  not  yet  known,  that  such  relation  cannot  be  expressed  by 
any  practical  formula. 

2d.  That  the  difference  in  wearing  capacity  of  these  64  rails  was 
not  due  to  carbon,  to  phosphorus,  to  silicon,  to  manganese,  or  to 
any  combination  of  these  four  elements,  but  that  it  was  due  to  some 
other  cause  or  combination  of  causes,  of  which  Dr.  Dudley’s  whole 
investigation  furnishes  us  no  clue  whatever.  A few  of  the  many 
possible  causes  I may  name,  sulphur,  copper,  oxide  of  iron,  inclosed 
air  or  other  gases,  overblowing,  underblowing,  overheating,  under- 
heating, too  hot-finishing,  too  cold-finishing,  cold-straightening,  too 
great  or  too  little  reduction  from  the  rail  to  the  ingot,  or  the  portion 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


27 


of  the  ingot  from  which  the  rail  was  taken,  as  top  or  bottom.  I 
have  no  idea  which  of  these  causes  has  the  greatest  influence  in 
determining  the  wearing  capacity  of  a rail, — probably  no  one  else 
has, — but  I firmly  believe  that  some  one  or  more  of  them  has  far 
more  influence  than  all  the  four  chemical  elements  named  in  Dr. 
Dudley’s  analyses  within  the  limits  which  I have  mentioned. 

3d.  That  the  railroad  companies  must  utterly  abandon,  for  the 
next  ten  years  at  least,  the  attempt  to  limit  rail  manufacturers  to  cer- 
tain prescribed  chemical  analyses,  unless  within  the  wide  range  of 
analyses  I have  given  above.  If  they  would  seek  to  establish  a 
definite  specification  by  which  to  insure  good  wearing  capacity,  and 
at  the  same  time  not  make  the  specification  an  impracticable  one  for 
railmakers  to  meet,  as  Dr.  Dudley’s  certainly  is,  they  must  inaugu- 
rate another  investigation  (and  I know  of  no  one  so  well  fitted  to 
undertake  it  as  Dr.  Dudley  himself,  after  he  shall  have  thoroughly 
disabused  his  mind  of  conclusions  already  formed),  which  investi- 
gation shall  take  at  least  ten  years  to  complete,  and  shall  include 
not  only  the  effect  of  the  four  chemical  elements  now  under  dis- 
cussion, but  all  the  other  supposed  causes  of  differences  in  wearing 
capacity  which  I have  mentioned  above,  besides  many  others  I have 
not  even  thought  of.  Such  an  investigation  I believe  the  railmakers 
would  not  object  to ; they  should  rather  contribute  towards  it.  It 
would  richly  repay  the  railroad  companies  by  enabling  them  to  secure 
better  rails,  providing  that  after  the  investigation  was  concluded  it 
should  reveal  the  causes  of  defective  wearing  capacity,  which  Dr. 
Dudley’s  present  investigation  does  not  do. 

4th.  That  Dr.  Dudley’s  failure  to  establish,  after  years  of  careful 
investigation,  the  relation  between  the  chemical  analysis  and  the 
wearing  capacity  of  a rail,  should  be  a lesson  to  other  consumers  of 
steel  besides  the  railroad  companies,  not  to  attempt  to  regulate  the 
steel  manufacture  by  a chemical  specification  based  upon  their  own 
investigations,  far  less  elaborate  than  that  of  Dr.  Dudley  or  that  of  the 
manufacturers.  It  is  a common  occurrence  for  a steel  manufacturer 
to  be  asked  to  guarantee  both  a chemical  and  a physical  specification 
entirely  inconsistent  with  each  other,  and  one  or  both  impossible  of 
fulfilment.  The  attempt  to  fill  orders  with  such  specifications  is  not 
only  annoying  but  often  even  ruinous  to  the  manufacturer,  causing 
the  rejection  of  much  steel  that  is  even  better  adapted  to  the  wants 
of  the  consumer  than  some  of  the  steel  which  is  accepted.  This  is 
precisely  the  result  which  would  happen  if  Dr.  Dudley’s  rail  speci- 
fications were  to  be  insisted  on. 


28 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


I will  now  undertake  to  give  a reason  for  the  conclusions  I have 
drawn.  Suppose  that  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad  Company  were  at 
once  to  insist  that  all  rails  furnished  them  should  conform  to  Dr. 
Dudley’s  specifications  in  these  six  particulars : 

Carbon, 25  to  .35 

Phosphorus, not  over  .10 

Silicon, not  over  .04 

Manganese,  ........  .30  to  .40 

Bending  weight, . ^ not  over  30001b 

Deflection, not  under  130° 

Suppose  that  before  the  rail  manufacturers  had  “got  the  hang” 
of  making  rails  within  these  rigid  limits,  and  while  they  were  yet 
making  them  with  the  wide  range  of  composition  which  they  are 
now  doing,  I should  be  sent  as  inspector  to  one  or  more  works  to 
inspect  64  lots  of  rails,  one  rail  being  taken  out  of  each  lot  for  test, 
the  test  rail  being  supposed  to  represent  exactly  the  lot  from  which 
it  was  taken.  Suppose,  further,  that  I test  these  64  rails  chemically 
and  physically,  and  find  that  the  results  are  exactly  those  given  in 
Dr.  Dudley’s  tables.  I tabulate  the  results  as  I have  done  here, 
rejecting  all  the  tension  and  torsion  tests,  as  these  are  not  included 
in  my  instructions,  and  I carefully  examine  the  table  to  see  how 
many  lots  I should  accept  and  how  many  I should  reject.  How 
many  of  these  64  rails  or  lots  would  I have  to  accept  under  these 
specifications  ? Only  three  ! And  one  of  these  three  would  be  classed 
by  Dr.  Dudley  as  a bad  rail,  standing  number  10  out  of  the  16 
rails  marked  “Level  Tangent.” 

I would  reject  sixty-one  of  these  sixty-four  rails  (or  lots),  for  vio- 
lation of  from  one  to  all  six  of  the  specifications. 

34  for  too  great  bending  load. 

29  “ small  deflection. 

42  u high  or  too  low  carbon. 

31  “ high  phosphorus. 

32  “ high  silicon. 

52  “ high  or  too  low  manganese. 

As  Dr.  Dudley  classes  the  64  rails  into  two  grand  divisions,  viz., 
32  slower  wearing  and  32  faster  wearing  (I  call  them  here  good 
rails  and  bad  rails  for  the  sake  of  brevity),  I have  to  reject  30  of 
his  good  rails . 

13  for  too  great  bending  load. 

7 “ small  deflection. 

21  “ high  or  too  low  carbon. 

11  “ high  phosphorus. 

14  “ high  silicon. 

21  “ high  or  too  low  manganese. 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


29 


On  the  tables  (Plates  6 and  7)  I have  marked  each  cause  of  rejec- 
tion with  a black  mark.  You  will  notice  that  they  seem  covered  all 
over  with  black  marks,  that  their  position  follows  no  regular  law,  but 
that  I seem  to  have  distributed  them  with  commendable  impartiality. 
I count  the  black  marks,  and  find  the  total  causes  of  rejection  to  num- 
ber 210  out  of  a possible  366,  or  an  average  of  3.44  for  each  of  the  61 
rails  rejected.  Of  the  31  bad  rails  rejected,  the  black  marks  or  causes 
of  rejection  number  123,  an  average  of  3.97.  Of  the  30  good  rails 
rejected,  the  causes  number  87,  an  average  of  2.9.  Here  is  a point 
in  favor  of  Dr.  Dudley,  the  31  bad  rails  rejected  do  have  a worse 
chemical  and  physical  record  than  the  30  good  rails  rejected,  the 
average  number  of  black  marks  against  the  bad  rails  being  greater 
in  the  ratio  of  3.97  to  2.9.  But  his  gratification  in  this  regard  must 
be  somewhat  diminished  when  he  learns  that  by  selecting  a number 
of  very,  very  bad  rails,  which  I have  done  on  the  tables,  drawing 
heavy  lines  around  them  and  marking  them  worst  rails , viz.,  the  2 
worst  rails  out  of  16  marked  tangent  grade,  the  4 worst  rails  out  of 
8 marked  curve  grade,  low  side,  the  3 worst  out  of  8 curve  grade, 
high  side,  the  3 worst  out  of  16  level  tangent,  the  2 worst  out  of  8 
level  curve,  low  side,  and  the  4 worst  out  of  8 level  curve,  high  side, 
the  total  causes  of  rejection  of  these  18  rails  is  68,  or  an  average  of 
only  3.78.*  That  is,  the  18  worst  rails  have  fewer  average  causes 
of  rejection  than  the  whole  31  rejected  rails  designated  “ faster  wear- 
ing/’ in  the  ratio  of  3.78  to  3.97. 

In  Dr.  Dudley’s  table  of  averages  he  compares  the  chemical  and 
physical  properties  of  32  slower-wearing  rails  with  those  of  32  faster- 
wearing  rails  in  all  conditions  of  service.  The  comparison  agrees  with 
his  conclusion  except  in  the  matter  of  silicon,  the  average  silicon  of 
the  bad  rails  being  lower  than  that  of  the  good  rails.  Let  us  carry 
the  comparison  a little  further,  and  compare  the  properties  of  the  18 
worst  rails,  which  I call  very,  very  bad  rails,  with  those  of  Dr. 
Dudley’s  32  bad  rails,  and  see  whether  it  strengthens  his  position. 
Here  is  the  comparison  : 


Loss  per 
million 
tons. 

Bending 

weight. 

Deflec- 

tion. 

C. 

P. 

Si. 

Mn. 

Phos. 

units. 

32  good  rails,  .0506 

2878 

160° 

.334 

.077 

.060 

.491 

31.3 

32  bad  rails,  .1028 

3222 

133° 

.390 

.106 

.047 

.647 

38.9 

18  worst  rails,  .1326 

3209 

135° 

.412 

.109 

.040 

.677 

40.4 

13  bad  (?)  rails,  .0668 

3267 

136° 

.369 

.105 

.050 

.632 

37.9 

* The  method  of  selection  of  these  18  rails  is  not  an  arbitrary  one,  as  will  be 
seen  further  on.  Of  the  16  level  tangent  rails,  14  should  be  classed  as  good  and 
2 as  bad ; a fairer  classification  than  that  of  8 faster  and  8 slower  wearing. 


30 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


The  18  worst  rails  show  a greater  loss  per  million  tons  than  the 
32  bad  rails  by  29  per  cent.,  while  in  three  elements  of  Dr.  Dudley’s 
specifications,  viz.,  bending  weight,  deflection,  and  silicon,  they  are 
slightly  better,  according  to  his  ideas,  and  in  three  others,  viz.,  car- 
bon, phosphorus,  and  manganese,  slightly  worse.  If  Dr.  Dudley’s 
conclusions  were  correct  we  should  expect  to  find  that  a lot  of  rails 
having  29  per  cent,  wors-ewearing  capacity  than  a larger  lot  which 
included  them,  would  show  a very  marked  deviation  in  average 
analysis  and  bending  tests  from  the  average  analysis  and  bending 
tests  of  the  larger  lot ; but  actually  the  deviation  is  so  slight  that 
Dr.  Dudley  himself  could  not  tell,  if  the  results  of  tests  alone  were 
presented  to  him,  which  lot  had  the  greater  and  which  the  less  wear- 
ing capacity. 

But  I have  carried  the  comparison  still  further.  In  the  fourth 
line  in  the  table  I have  placed  the  record  of  the  other  13  bad  (?)  rails, 
out  of  the  31  faster-wearing  rails,  which  would  have  been  rejected 
under  Dr.  Dudley’s  specifications.  (I  have  omitted  in  this  average, 
rail  No.  920,  classed  bv  Dr.  Dudley  as  a bad  rail  from  its  faster 
wearing,  but  which  conforms  to  his  specifications  in  every  respect.) 
I have  placed  an  “(?)”  after  the  word  bad  in  designating  these  rails, 
as  I think  they  should  have  been  classed  with  the  32  good  rails,  on 
account  of  their  wearing  capacity  being  much  nearer  to  that  of  the 
good  rails  than  to  that  of  the  18  worst  rails  with  which  they  are  asso- 
ciated. Comparing  the  18  worst  rails  with  the  13  bad  (?)  rails,  we 
find  the  former  to  be  over  98  per  cent,  (or  nearly  double)  worse  in 
wearing  capacity  than  the  former,  while  their  analyses  and  bending 
tests  indicate  them  to  be  very  nearly  alike.  The  worst  rails  are  lower 
in  bending  weight  and  silicon,  and  only  slightly  lower  in  deflection, 
and  slightly  higher  in  carbon,  phosphorus,  and  manganese.  Here 
is  a very  plain  case  selected  from  Dr.  Dudley’s  own  work.  Two 
distinct  lots  of  rails,  one  lot  twice  as  good  in  wearing  capacity  as 
another,  but  both  lots  closely  agreeing  in  average  analysis  and  bend- 
ing tests.  What  stronger  evidence  could  be  produced  of  the  fallacy 
of  his  formula  ? 

If,  in  any  large  series  of  observations  of  the  values  of  different 
variable  quantities,  such  as  are  here  dealt  with,  there  exists  any  law 
of  interdependence  of  such  variables,  the  figures  representing  such 
observations  can  be  plotted  on  cross-section  paper,  and  the  law  will 
be  plainly  revealed  by  a curve  or  straight  line  drawn  through  the 
various  observations.  I have  thus  plotted  the  results  of  Dr.  Dudley, 
and  have  made  42  curves,  or  attempts  at  curves,  to  discover,  if  pos- 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


31 


sibe,  the  existence  of  any  law  of  interdependence  of  the  variable 
wearing  capacity  in  the  six  series  of  rails,  viz.,  tangent  grade,  curve 
grade  high  side,  curve  grade  low  side,  tangent  level,  level  curve, 
high  side  and  level  curve,  low  side,  with  the  seven  other  variables, 
bending  weight,  deflection,  carbon,  silicon,  phosphorus,  manganese, 
and  phosphorus  units.  Here  is  the  diagram  (Plate  I)  with  the  forty- 
two  attempts  to  form  as  many  curves.  You  will  see  there  is  neither 
curve  nor  straight  line  here, — nothing  but  a heterogeneous  mass  of 
ups  and  downs  and  straights  across, — not  the  slightest  indication  of 
any  law  in  any  single  curve  which  is  not  contradicted  by  another 
curve  of  the  same  variable  in  another  series. 

This  set  of  curves,  or  rather  zigzags,  shows  plainly  my  reason  for 
separating  Dr.  Dudley’s  32  bad  rails  into  two  series,  one  of  18  worst 
rails,  the  other  of  14  which  nearly  approach  the  good  rails.  In  the 
curves  of  the  tangent  grade  rails,  the  two  worst  rails,  882  and  893, 
in  their  plotted  positions  in  the  curve  remove  themselves  far  from 
the  main  body  of  these  rails,  and  therefore  in  contrast  with  the  others 
they  are  justly  named  the  very,  very  bad  rails  of  this  lot.  This 
grouping  of  the  very  bad  rails  far  away  from  the  better  rails  is  still 
more  plainly  seen  in  the  level  tangent  rails,  where  13  rails  are  com- 
paratively near  together  in  position,  and  the  other  3 are  far  removed 
from  them,  thus  plainly  indicating  that  if  we  wish  to  consider  the 
relation  of  the  chemical  composition  of  these  16  rails  to  their  wearing 
capacity,  the  method  of  averaging  the  8 faster  wearing  and  the  8 
slower  wearing — which  Dr.  Dudley  seems  to  think  is  the  only  good 
one — is  not  the  best  by  any  means,  but  that  to  obtain  an  intelligent 
deduction  the  thirteen  fairly  good  rails  must  be  contrasted  with  the 
three  rails  which  are  widely  different  from  them  in  wearing  capacity. 

I have  said  that  these  zigzags  indicate  the  absence  of  any  law  of  re- 
lation between  wearing  capacity  and  the  six  variable  quantities  under 
consideration.  I am  surprised  that  Dr.  Dudley  did  not  include  his 
phosphorus  units  in  his  specification,  as  I regard  this  idea  of  phos- 
phorus units  as  a most  valuable  conception,  and  one  likely  to  lead 
to  the  advancement  of  our  knowledge  of  the  relation  of  the  physical 
to  the  chemical  qualities  of  steel.  For  this  reason  I have  included 
phosphorus  units  in  my  plate  of  zigzags,  although  Dr.  Dudley  has 
not  named  it  in  his  specifications.  I thought  it  probable  that  by 
plotting  the  phosphorus  units,  I might  possibly  discover  whether 
they  had  any  relation  to  wearing  capacity,  although  carbon,  phos- 
phorus, silicon,  and  manganese  had  no  such  relation.  I discovered 
none.  But  there  is  a very  marked  peculiarity  in  the  zigzags  repre- 


32 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


senting  phosphorus  units  besides  that  of  general  relation  to  the  four 
chemical  elements  which  follow  as  a matter  of  necessity,  namely,  the 
almost  entire  parallelism  of  the  lines  of  phosphorus  units  and  bending 
weight.  This  suggests  at  once  the  existence  of  a relation  between 
phosphorus  units  and  bending  weight,  and  I have,  therefore,  made 
another  diagram,  plotting  the  figures  expressing  this  relation.  The 
accompanying  Plate  II  shows  bending  weight  at  the  side  of  the  sec- 
tion paper,  and  phosphorus  units  at  the  bottom.  You  will  plainly 
notice  that  there  is  an  evident  trend  of  the  dots  representing  the  rails 
in  the  direction  of  an  ascending  inclined  straight  line.  The  whole 
range  of  bending  weights  being  2000  pounds,  the  deviation  of  the 
position  of  any  rail  from  this  inclined  straight  line  (with  only  two 
exceptions)  is  an  ordinate  representing  less  than  450  pounds.  The 
inclined  straight  line  is  the  average  direction  of  trend  of  these  dots, 
and  the  individual  dots  do  not  deviate  greatly  from  this  average 
direction.  The  law  of  the  relation  between  phosphorus  units  and 
bending  weight  is  thus  clearly  established,  and  it  is  this : The  in- 
crease of  bending  weight  is  directly  proportional  to  the  increase  of  phos- 
phorus units.  The  discovery  of  the  law  is  a strong  presumptive 
proof  of  the  correctness  of  Dr.  Dudley’s  hypothesis  in  regard  to  the 
hardening  influence  of  the  four  chemical  elements  upon  steel,  viz., 
that  the  relations  of  phosphorus,  silicon,  carbon,  and  manganese  are 
to  each  other  in  respect  to  hardening  as  the  numbers,  1,  J,  J,  and  i. 
Dr.  Dudley  is  certainly  to  be  congratulated  upon  this  discovery  of 
presumptive  proof  of  his  hypothesis. 

The  fact  of  the  law  of  relation  of  bending  weight  to  phosphorus 
units  being  so  plainly  indicated  in  these  64  analyses  and  tests,  while 
there  is  no  such  indication  from  these  tests  of  any  similar  relation 
existing  between  wearing  capacity  and  phosphorus  units,  or  between 
wearing  capacity  and  carbon,  phosphorus,  silicon,  manganese,  bend- 
ing weight,  or  deflection,  is  almost  absolute  proof  in  itself  that  such 
relation  does  not  exist  at  all,  or,  as  stated  in  the  first  part  of  my 
remarks,  if  it  does  exist  it  is  entirely  obscured  by  the  influence  of 
other  variable  quantities  not  considered  in  Dr.  Dudley’s  paper. 

On  the  diagram  on  which  is  plotted  the  relation  of  phosphorus  units 
to  bending  weight  I have  indicated  the  position  of  each  of  Dr.  Dud- 
ley’s 32  slower-wearing  rails  by  a single  dot.  The  18  worst  rails 
of  the  64  are  indicated  by  a dot  surrounded  by  a circle,  and  the 
remaining  14,  called  second-best  on  the  diagram,  are  indicated  by  a 
dot  surrounded  by  a semicircle.  By  drawing  the  line  between  rails 
which  would  be  rejected  on  Dr.  Dudley’s  specification  for  bending 


igsITsTss 


Transactions  of  the  American  Institute  of  ijlfaiing  Engineers.  Tol.  IX. 


lent.— Plate  I. 


Minding  Engine 


$ 

92 

1 

• s 

33 

83 

•f 

91 

•9 

44 

l5  9 

16 

•9 

15 

1 91 

r 

>0^ 

S- 

R 

EL 

A 

ri 

4 < 

JF 

B 

EW 

36  38  4( 

MUMU 


Transactions  off  tie  American  Institute  of  Mining  Engineers,  Vol.  IX, 


Kent —Plate  II. 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


33 


weight  alone,  viz.,  not  above  3000  pounds,  and  counting  those  above 
the  line,  it  is  seen  that  there  are  34  rails  rejected  out  of  the  64,  and 
of  these  34,  13  are  the  best  rails  of  the  series  (Dr.  Dudley’s  slower- 
wearing  rails),  9 are  the  second-best  rails, — almost  as  good  as  the 
former, — and  12  are  from  the  18  worst  rails.  Counting  the  accepted 
rails,  a total  of  30,  19  are  best  rails,  5 are  second-best,  and  6 worst. 
As  already  shown,  of  these  30  rails,  which  might  be  accepted  on  the 
ground  of  their  bending  weight  being  below  3000  pounds,  only  three 
of  them  could  pass  the  gauntlet  of  all  the  other  five  specifications, 
and  one  of  these  three  is  a second-best  rail. 

, I think  I have  now  proved  my  first  proposition,  but  I must 
anticipate  an  objection  which  Dr.  Dudley  may  possibly  raise.  He 
may  say  that  ray  argument  against  his  formula,  based  upon  the 
rejection  of  61  rails  out  of  64,  is  invalid,  because  these  rails  were 
not  made  according  to  his  formula.  Let  them  be  made  according 
to  my  formula,  he  may  say,  and  they  will  not  be  rejected,  and  they 
will  give  good  service.  I regret  that  he  has  given  us  the  record  of 
only  three  rails  which  do  conform  to  his  formula;  they  are  not 
sufficient  in  number  to  draw  valid  conclusions  from,  but,  such  as 
they  are,  here  is  the  conclusion  they  lead  to.  Two  of  them  are 
slower- wearing,  one  a faster- wearing  rail ; therefore,  out  of  three 
rails  which  conform  to  the  formula,  the  chances  are  that  one  rail 
will  not  be  a good  one.  Are  the  railroad  companies  satisfied  with 
such  a result  as  this  ? But  suppose,  for  the  purpose  of  admitting  a 
greater  number  of  rails  into  our  accepted  list,  we  relax  the  specifica- 
tions slightly.  We  will  say  that  rails  must  be  made  according  to 
Dr.  Dudley’s  formula,  but  if  a rail  happens  to  conform  to  five  of  the 
six  specifications  and  fails  in  only  one,  and  that  one  manganese,  the 
least  injurious  element  considered  (Dr.  Dudley  himself  considering 
it  only  one-fifth  as  bad  as  phosphorus),  then  we  will  not  reject  that 
rail.  Our  list  of  accepted  rails  will  then  read  as  follows : 


No. 

Service. 

Max. 

load. 

Deflec- 

tion. 

C. 

P. 

Si. 

Mn. 

p. 

units. 

920 

Level  tangent  10th  in  16 

2630 

190° 

•293 

.063 

.039 

.326 

24.6 

932 

“ curve,  low  side,  1st  “ 8 

2340 

190° 

.269 

.047 

.026 

.372 

22.4 

943 

“ “ “ 6th  “ 8 

2780 

159£° 

.314 

.061 

.025 

.602 

29.8 

931 

“ “ high  side,  5th  “ 8 

2430 

190° 

.260 

.047 

.029 

.416 

23.1 

887 

Tangent  grade,  1st  “ 16 

2770 

190° 

.287 

.048 

.023 

.435 

24.2 

886 

“ “ 13th  “ 16 

2790 

190° 

.349 

.069 

.026 

.404 

27.9 

899 

Curve  gr.,  low  side,  1st  “ 8 

2620 

190° 

.263 

.051 

.038 

.326 

22  3 

910 

“ “ “ 6th  “ 8 

2660 

190° 

.343 

.098 

.020 

.478 

31.8 

Here  are  eight  rails,  unquestionably  the  softest  rails  of 

the  series, 

5 


34 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


conforming  exactly  to  Dr.  Dudley’s  specifications,  except  four  which 
have  manganese  less  than  one-tenth  of  a per  cent,  higher,  and  one 
with  manganese  two-tenths  of  a per  cent,  higher  than  the  specifica- 
tions. We  ought  to  expect  that  all  or  nearly  all  of  these  eight  rails 
would  be  included  in  the  thirty-two  rails  designated  by  Dr.  Dudley 
as  slower  wearing,  but,  on  the  contrary,  there  are  only  three  of  them 
so  included,  and  five  of  them  are  the  faster- wear! ng  rails.  It  has 
been  said  that  exceptions  prove  the  rule,  but  there  is  such  a thing 
as  having  more  exceptions  than  rule,  and  I think  we  have  such  a 
case  before  us. 

After  Dr.  Dudley  has  spent  some  years  investigating  the  difficult 
problem  of  determining  what  physical  or  chemical  properties  have 
an  influence  upon  wear,  he  tabulates  his  results ; he  studies  them 
carefully;  he  then  proceeds  to  write  his  report  and  to  draw  his  con- 
clusions. In  the  report  we  find  the  following  words : 

“ Giving  our  attention  now  to  the  tables,  I think  the  first  observa- 
tion will  be  that  there  is  no  absolute  gradation  in  physical  quali- 
ties, or  in  chemical  composition,  applying  to  every  rail  in  each 
group,  which  corresponds  to  the  gradation  in  amount  of  metal  lost 
per  million  tons.” 

Then  he  tells  us  we  ought  not  to  expect  such  uniformity,  for  two 
reasons : 

1st.  Errors  in  determining  loss  of  metal  and  tonnage. 

2d.  I quote  his  own  words : “ I am  not  aware  that  it  is  known 
as  yet  exactly  what  wear  is,  or  what  it  is  dependent  upon ; . . . 
whether  wear  is  a direct  function  of  the  tensile  strength  of  steel, 
or  of  its  elongation,  or  of  its  elastic  limit,  or  of  its  resilience,  or  any 
combination  of  these,  or  indeed,  as  seems  somewhat  probable,  of  the 
amount  of  distortion  by  bending  that  a piece  of  steel  will  suffer, 
is  a problem  yet  to  be  solved.” 

It  certainly  is  a problem  yet  to  be  solved , and  it  will  take  many 
years  to  solve  it.  Dr.  Dudley  should  have  stopped  here,  and 
drawn  the  conclusion  which  I have  drawn,  namely,  that,  within  the 
wide  range  of  analyses  and  bending  tests  which  I mentioned  in  the 
first  part  of  these  remarks,  as  far  as  these  sixty-four  tests  show  any- 
thing, they  indicate  that  whatever  wear  is  or  may  be  dependent 
upon  it  is  not  dependent  upon  carbon,  phosphorus,  silicon,  man- 
ganese, bending  weight,  and  deflection.  Instead  of  this,  in  one 
breath  he  admits  he  does  not  know  what  wear  is  dependent  upon, 
and  in  the  next  he  formulates  the  extraordinary  non  sequitur  that  it 
is  dependent  upon  carbon,  phosphorus,  silicon,  manganese,  bending 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


35 


weight,  and  deflection,  and  recommends  that  the  Pennsylvania  Rail- 
road Company  demand  that  rails  be  made  on  specifications,  based 
on  these  six  variables,  so  narrow  that  to  fill  them  would  cause  the 
constant  rejection  of  enormous  quantities  of  steel,  and  a consequent 
enhancement  of  the  price  of  rails,  probably  ten  or  twenty  per  cent., 
without  any  certainty  that  such  rails  would  be  any  better  than  those 
the  steel-mills  are  now  making. 

I earnestly  hope  that  the  investigation  which  Dr.  Dudley  has  so 
ably  carried  on  will  be  continued.  I hope  the  Pennsylvania  Rail- 
road Company,  or  preferably  a combination  of  several  railroads, 
will  institute  the  prolonged  investigation  which  I think  will  be 
necessary  to  solve  this  deep  problem ; that  they  will  take  a hundred 
or  more  rails,  watching  and  noting  down  carefully  every  detail  of 
their  manufacture  as  well  as  their  analysis;  that  they  will  be  care- 
fully weighed  before,  during,  and  after  service;  that  their  crop-ends 
will  be  tested  before  service,  and  the  rails  themselves  after  removal ; 
that  all  the  sources  of  error  which  Dr.  Dudley  admits  in  the  present 
investigation  may  be  removed,  and  that  enough  facts  may  be  gath- 
ered and  tabulated  so  that  the  conclusions  which  may  be  drawn  from 
' them  may  be  apparent  to  every  one  without  labored  discussion  or 
heated  argument.  But  I venture  to  prophesy  that  after  this  investi- 
gation shall  have  been  completed,  and  a formula  adopted  which 
shall  be  satisfactory  to  both  manufacturers  and  consumers,  that 
formula  will  not  be  the  one  now  under  discussion. 

I hope  Dr.  Dudley  will  pardon  me  if  I have  been  unduly  severe 
in  my  criticism,  and  consider  that  I have  written  my  remarks  hastily 
and  at  a time  which  should  have  been  given  to  needed  rest.  1 
differ  with  him  only  as  regards  the  conclusions  which  he  has 
drawn.  I appreciate  the  value  of  his  labors,  and  only  make  public 
my  own  conclusions  in  the  hope  of  contributing  to  the  advance- 
ment of  the  science  of  steelmaking,  in  which  we  are  all  so  deeply 
interested. 

Dr.  August  Wendel,  Troy,  N.  Y. : Dr.  Dudley’s  last  paper 

gives,  certainly,  very  valuable  and  interesting  information  regarding 

the  wear  of  rails  under  different  conditions.  His  results  concerning; 

© 

the  composition  of  rails,  explode,  rather  startlingly,  some  old  theo- 
ries regarding  the  wear  of  rails,  and  I think  after  his  formula  is 
simplified  it  will  be  one  good  formula  to  work  by. 

As  he  now  arrives  at  the  same  conclusions  reached  in  his  first 
paper,  some  of  my  remarks  will  apply  to  both,  although  I would 


36 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


not  attempt  to  add  anything  directly  to  the  distinguished  criticism 
the  first  paper  received. 

Regarding  his  silicon  percentages,  I must  say  I cannot  see  any 
reason  why  they  have  not  been  disregarded  entirely  within  the 
limits  of  his  investigation.  In  following  Dr.  Dudley’s  reasoning  in 
the  use  of  averages  and  applying  inductive  methods,  I cannot  see 
what  importance  can  be  attached  to  this  element,  since,  in  his  first 
investigations,  the  good  and  bad  rails  averaged  nearly  alike,  and  in 
his  last  series  the  rails  which  wore  best,  showed  even  more  silicon 
than  the  bad  ones.  I regard,  therefore,  the  silicon  an  inconsider- 
able factor  in  making  out  the  phosphorus  units,  without  considering 
here  the  actual  influence  of  this  element  on  hardness, — an  influence 
which  is  greatly  overestimated  in  the  formula. 

With  regard  to  the  effect  of  manganese,  I cannot  agree  with  his 
conclusions.  In  ordinary  working  with  full-blown  steel,  manganese 
is  more  or  less  the  function  of  carbon,  provided  the  spiegel  is 
constant,  and  consequently  should  not  be  introduced  into  a formula 
for  daily  working  as  an  independent  coefficient. 

In  March,  1875,  I made  a report  to  my  employers  concerning  the 
unsatisfactory  working  of  steel  in  blooming.*  I then  came  to  the 
conclusion  that  steel  ingots,  in  order  to  roll  well  ought  to  contain : 

In  = 0.8  (C  + } Si)  + 4 P, 

these  symbols  standing  for  the  respective  percentages  of  the  ele 
ments.  I maintain  to-day,  that  for  good  results  in  blooming,  this 
percentage  of  manganese  ought  to  be  aimed  at  for  rail  steel.  For 
this  reason  I would  sooner  undertake  to  make  steel  according  to 
Dr.  Dudley’s  original  formula,  viz.: 


Carbon,  ...........  0.334 

Silicon,  0.060 

Phosphorus,  0.077 

Manganese, 0.491 


than  according  to  the  one  in  which  he  tries  to  make  concessions  to 
the  manufacturers,  viz. : 


Carbon, 0.30 

Silicon,  . . . . 0 04 

Phosphorus,  . . . . . . . . . . 0 10 

Manganese, 0.35 


* Transactions,  Yol.  IY,  page  364. 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


37 


Now  in  spite  of  all  the  progress  in  steel  manufacture,  we  have  not 
succeeded  in  making  up  steel  by  prescription,  and  what  would 
therefore  become  of  the  ingots  in  which  manganese  for  some  cause 
or  other  should  happen  to  fall  below  Dr.  Dudley’s  meagre  allow- 
ance? The  answer  will  be:  “ Works  must  return  to  the  old  practice 
of  hammering  ingots,”  but  I doubt  very  much  whether  even  by  ham- 
mering a sounder  bloom,  and  as  a consequence,  a better  rail  is  ob- 
tained. 

German  government  officials  who  as  a rule  are  not  happy  unless 
they  can  make  things  unpleasant  for  somebody,  must  have  got  hold 
of  Dr.  Dudley’s  formula,  as  they  lately  insist  upon  steel  being 
hammered.  Now,  there  is  not  the  least  doubt  that  some  of  the  steel 
under  Dr.  Dudley’s  investigation  was  hammered,  but  I do  not  deem 
it  necessary  to  resume  that  practice,  if  a larger  manganese  percentage 
is  used. 

I am  greatly  encouraged  in  this  statement  by  the  analysis  of  the 
rara  avis  of  the  series.  I refer  to  the  one  showing  0.48  silicon. 
I would  consider  it  sound  metal,  since  it  satisfies  my  equation  re- 
garding manganese,  and  still,  in  spite  of  its  increased  hardness  and 
its  enormous  phosphorus  units,  is  satisfactory  in  wearing  capacity. 

The  conclusions  of  Dr.  Dudley’s  ingenious  experiments  seem  more 
simple  than  he  cares  to  admit,  and  could  be  condensed  by  simply 
saying  : “Use  iron  low  in  phosphorus,  and  do  not  make  the  steel  too 
hard.” 

Regarding  tests  of  steel  made  from  such  iron,  I would  even  be 
more  stringent  than  Mr.  Sandberg.  Of  each  blow  I would  make  a 
bar  about  one  inch  square,  and  bend  it  cold.  It  should  not  be  so 
hard  as  to  resist  bending  to  the  shape  of  a horseshoe,  nor  should  it 
be  so  soft  as  to  bend  180  degrees  without  showing  signs  of  fracture. 
There  would  thus  be  obtained  a quality  of  steel  that  would  more 
than  satisfy  Dr.  Dudley’s  pretty  theory  of  infinitesimal  teeth  by 
creating  those  whose  tendency  would  be  to  neither  flatten  nor  to 
bend.  I think  that  in  making  this  test,  and  supplementing  it  by  the 
carbon  test,  manganese  and  silicon  would  regulate  themselves  much 
more  nicely  than  any  specification  could  effect.  Every  steel  maker 
knows  that,  should  the  silicon  run  high,  the  heat  is  blown  too  short, 
carbon  will  be  increased  considerably,  and  the  test  will  not  stand. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  manganese  is  high,  the  heat  has  received  too 
much  spiegel  (and  that  is  simple  awkwardness)  and  carbon  would 
show  the  same  result  as  above. 

In  conclusion,  I should  think  that  railroad  authorities,  under  all 


38 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


circumstances,  would  prefer  the  steel  with  which  they  are  now 
familiar,  to  a specimen  that  Mr.  Sandberg  has  described  as  having 
broken  into  seventeen  pieces  under  the  wheels.  After  blowing  such 
low  manganese  steel,  it  may  be  coaxed  into  a rail,  and  it  is  a wonder 
that  it  holds  together  so  long  as  it  does,  with  so  great  a number  of 
minute  flaws. 

I would  not  in  any  way  depreciate  chemistry,  but  I think  it  should 
be  kept  in  its  proper  sphere.  Let  the  chemist  look  after  the  quality 
of  pig  metal,  and  apply  common  sense  in  the  avoiding  of  extremes, 
then  the  most  fastidious  railroad  cannot  find  fault  with  the  result. 

Professor  Egleston,  New  York  City  : It  is  not  my  place  as 
an  engineer  to  apologize  for  the  chemists,  but  as  no  one  seems  disposed 
to  do  so,  and  as  they  have  had  more  than  their  share  of  criticism,  I am 
glad  to  say  that  I believe  there  are  chemists  in  this  Institute  whose 
work  and  word  is  just  as  reliable,  and  perhaps  even  more  so,  than  that 
of  the  average  engineer.  But  we  ought  to  make  a distinction  ; there 
are  chemists  and  chemists.  With  the  ordinary  commercial  chemist, 
who  looks  upon  the  science  as  so  much  merchandise,  I have  not  a par- 
ticle of  sympathy ; but  with  the  chemist  who  looks  upon  his  profession 
as  engineers  do  upon  theirs,  I have  every  sympathy.  When  manu- 
facturers and  engineers  go  to  a chemist  and  ask  him  to  make  an  in- 
vestigation, and  screw  him  down  to  the  lowest  point,  turning  the 
equivalent  of  his  brains  into  cents  and  mills,  they  usually  get  an 
exact  equivalent  in  poor  work  for  miserable  pay,  and  no  one  has 
or  should  have  any  sympathy  with  them,  and  the  manufacturer 
under  these  conditions  has  no  right  to  ask  for  any,  and  no  reason  to 
criticize  any  work  that  he  may  get  under  such  circumstances.  But 
I am  disposed  to  think  that  the  chemists  who  have  been  represented 
and  discussed  at  this  meeting  do  their  work  conscientiously,  and  that 
it  is  as  reliable  as  that  of  almost  any  profession. 

I believe,  however,  that  this  problem  of  steel  rails  is  being  inves- 
tigated in  a wrong  direction.  I said  so  at  the  Pittsburgh  meeting, 
and  I think  the  discussion  of  this  meeting  will  prove  it  to  all  those 
who  have  heard  it.  I think  the  chemist  is  incapable  of  solving  this 
problem  unless  he  goes  very  far  into  the  domain  of  physical  chem- 
istry, so  far  that  it  becomes  physics  and  not  chemistry ; and  that  the 
physicist  will  be  the  one  on  whom  we  must  rely  in  the  future  for 
the  elucidation  of  the  subject.  The  chemist  may  aid  the  physicist, 
but  it  is  my  decided  opinion  that  we  are  looking  in  the  wrong 
place  to  get  the  explanation  of  the  phenomena. 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


39 


Attention  was  called  at  the  St.  Louis,  and  afterwards  at  the  Balti- 
more meeting,  to  the  fact  that  the  pounding  which  a rail  receives  from 
the  falling  of  the  engine  from  a high  rail  to  a low  one  was  sufficient 
in  many  cases  to  account  for  effects  which  have  not  been  explained  in 
this  discussion.  This  statement  was  made  after  an  extended  observa- 
tion had  been  made  of  rails  laid  over  many  hundred  miles  of  railway 
in  Europe.  But  if  it  is  true,  as  Mr.  Cloud  stated  in  his  papers 
read  yesterday,  that  the  blow  of  the  engine  is  repeated  not  only 
at  the  end  of  the  rail,  but  every  time  the  driving-wheel  makes  a 
revolution,  it  will  explain  much  of  the  giving-way  of  the  rails  over 
their  whole  length,  and  the  effects  of  these  blows  on  the  physical 
condition  of  the  steel  should  be  very  carefully  investigated.  It  was 
shown  in  the  discussion  of  the  law  of  fatigue  and  refreshment  of 
metals  at  the  meeting  in  Montreal,  that  every  blow  was  accompanied 
by  a physical  effect  which  could  be  rendered  distinctly  visible.  The 
blow  and  pressure  of  the  gag  which  always  leaves  its  trace  on  the 
rail  is  certainly  less  of  a physical  effect  than  the  constant  and  rapidly 
repeated  series  of  blows  which  the  rail  receives  from  the  continual 
passing  of  trains,  yet  the  gagging  always  injures  a rail  and  some- 
times destroys  it. 

At  the  Baltimore  meeting  two  rails  were  shown  which  had  been 
placed  in  essentially  different  conditions,  and  which  had  been  sub- 
ject to  a cold  flow  of  the  metal  in  every  part  of  the  rail  even  to  the 
very  outside  of  the  foot.  Mr.  Metcalf  yesterday  showed  this  same 
kind  of  a flow  in  rolls.  He  also  spoke  of  the  ignoring  of  the  copper 
in  the  analyses  of  steel  rails.  At  the  Washington  meeting  in  1876, 
the  statement  was  challenged  that  good  steel  rails  had  been  made  con- 
taining any  very  large  percentage  of  copper,  and  though  repeatedly 
promised  the  analyses  of  such  rails  they  have  never  been  produced. 
Some  years  ago,  in  visiting  one  of  the  largest  steel  works  where 
the  ingots  are  compressed,  I noticed  a jet  of  blue  flame  passing  out 
from  the  bottom  of  the  ingot  mould,  which  I at  first  thought 
was  phosphorus,  but  which  I afterwards  determined  to  be  copper. 
Certainly,  if  there  is  enough  copper  in  the  rail  to  allow  of  its  be- 
coming visible  in  the  color  of  the  flame,  there  must  be  enough  to  in- 
fluence its  physical  condition  and  its  life,  and  we  cannot  afford  to 
neglect  it. 

I have  also  had  occasion  to  show  that  bubbles  produced  in  the 
steel  ingots  were  never  rolled  out  of  them,  and  that  if  they  were 
once  in  the  ingot  they  remain  in  the  rail  and  arrange  themselves 
in  such  conditions  that  they  were  sure  sooner  or  later  to  engender 


40 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


a weakness  in  the  direction  which  the  cavities  take.  As  these 
bubbles  are  never  rolled  out  as  the  rail  wears,  they  come  to  the  sur- 
face, and  the  rail  which  shows  a chemical  analysis  which  is  perfect, 
becomes  imperfect  from  a physical  defect.  Every  one  who  is  familiar 
with  the  breaking  of  metals  in  a testing  machine  has  been  made 
aware  of  the  fact  that  these  bubbles  will  often  cause  metals  whose 
analysis  is  faultless,  to  break  with  a very  low  tensile  strength,  while 
a piece  without  bubbles,  taken  from  the  same  sample,  will  break 
with  a high  one.  These  bubbles  are  sometimes  finer  than  pin-holes. 
I have,  in  investigating  this  fact  in  railroad  material,  occasionally 
come  across  iron  and  steel  which  were  so  fatigued  at  the  time  that 
they  left  the  rolls,  that  they  were  really  unfit  for  service ; and  I have 
seen  new  rails  which  I should  not  feel  justified  in  placing  in  any  other 
position  than  on  a side  track.  This  question  of  fatigue  in  the  course 
of  manufacture  has  not  been  discussed  at  all  so  far  as  I know.  I 
took  occasion  to  show  in  the  St.  Louis  meeting,  that  a rail  taken 
from  the  Northern  Railway  of  France,  which  I had  the  pleasure  of 
examining,  and  which  was  condemned  as  good  for  nothing,  and 
which  the  manufacturers  were  obliged  to  replace,  when  brought  to 
Paris  and  submitted  to  chemical  and  physical  tests,  proved  to  be  as 
good  as  any  rails  which  were  in  the  service.  These  kind  of  physical 
defects  are  the  ones  which  are  to  be  looked  after ; and,  in  fact,  nearly 
all  the  defects  for  which  a chemical  solution  is  demanded  are  physical. 
I have  within  the  last  year  had  occasion  to  examine  metals  and 
alloys  which  are  fatigued,  and  find  that  while  chemically  the  same, 
they  act  physically  so  entirely  differently  that  I hope  at  some  future 
meeting  of  the  Institute  to  bring  the  matter  before  you. 

I am  at  a loss  to  know  why  certain  chemical  substances  which 
we  know  are  in  the  iron  or  are  likely  to  be  there,  should  hot  be  de- 
termined, and  their  effects  discussed.  Copper  is  one  of  these,  sul- 
phur is  another,  titanium  and  vanadium  are  known  to  be  sometimes 
there.  Why  should  not  the  effects  of  these  substances  be  discussed  ? 

Mr.  Metcalf  has  alluded  to  the  question  of  occluded  gases.  I 
have  had  occasion  to  show  recently  in  my  laboratory  that  as  a gen- 
eral thing  metals  and  alloys  which  were  brittle  from  fatigue,  con- 
tained a much  larger  amount  of  gas  than  the  same  metal  which  was 
not  fatigued.  I have  also  ascertained  that  the  metals  in  this  con- 
dition go  into  solution  in  a manner  quite  different  from  those  not 
fatigued.  I think  also  that  the  place  from  which  the  sample  is  taken 
from  the  rail  will  make  some  difference  with  regard  to  the  results. 
Some  one,  I do  not  remember  who,  made  an  investigation  some 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


41 


years  ago  upon  the  effect  of  having  the  rails  always  rolled  in  the 
same  direction,  and  also  of  having  them  rolled  backwards  and  for- 
wards, and  showed  that  under  the  latter  course  there  were  of  neces- 
sity weak  spots  somewhere  near  the  centre  of  the  rail,  yet  in  all  this 
discussion  the  methods  of  rolling  have  been  passed  by  almost  in 
silence. 

Mr.  Sandberg  in  his  paper  mentions  the  idea  of  using  a registering 
dynamometer  attached  to  the  punching  machines,  and  of  determining 
the  quality  of  the  metal  by  the  resistance  which  is  shown.  I think 
the  first  idea  of  this  kind  was  published  by  Professor  Langley,  then 
of  Pittsburgh,  who,  while  making  some  investigations  for  Messrs. 
Miller,  Metcalf  and  Parkin,  announced  as  the  result  of  a series  of 
dynamometric  experiments  that  abrasive  resistance  was  the  term 
which  should  be  used  in  regard  to  steels  of  different  wearing  quali- 
ties. I have  had  extremely  delicate  dynamometers  attached  to  the 
instruments  of  precision  with  which  I am  making  the  investigation 
on  the  fatigue  of  metals,  and  hope  soon  to  communicate  the  results 
of  the  investigation  made  with  them  to  the  Institute. 

I wish  again  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  we  are  using  the 
words  “ hardener  99  and  “ hardness  99  without  any  real  idea  of  the 
meaning  of  these  works.  When  we  say  hard  and  soft,  as  we  have 
been  constantly  doing  during  this  discussion,  is  it  quite  sure  that 
every  one  has  exactly  the  same  meaning  in  his  mind  ? Certainly, 
when  hard  is  used  in  distinction  from  soft,  we  mean  not  the  capacity 
of  wear,  but  the  capacity  of  resistance  to  penetration,  to  fracture,  or 
some  other  resistance,  and  do  not  always  mean  the  capacity  of  resist- 
ance to  abrasion  or  crushing,  which  the  discussion  would  sometimes 
seem  to  imply  were  the  only  qualities  requisite  to  constitute  a good 
rail. 

J.  W.  Cloud,  Altoona,  Pa.  : I would  call  the  attention  of  the 
Institute  to  the  title  of  Dr.  Dudley’s  interesting  and  valuable  paper, 
— “ The  Wearing  Capacity  of  Steel  Rails  in  relation  to  their  Chemi- 
cal Composition  and  Physical  Properties.”  Here  are  two  separate 
and  distinct  questions:  1st,  The  wearing  capacity  of  steel  rails  in 
relation  to  their  chemical  content ; and  2d,  the  wearing  capacity  of 
steel  rails  in  relation  to  their  physical  properties. 

The  discussion  has  been  almost  exclusively  confined  to  the  former 
question,  on  which  there  may  be  many  differences  of  opinion  in 
matters  of  detail  without  greatly  affecting  the  result.  The  latter 

6 


42 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


question  has  been  ignored,  and  I wish  to  call  attention  to  it,  particu- 
larly, because  it  is  the  practical  question  after  all  from  the  con- 
sumer’s standpoint,  and  because  the  paper  under  discussion  is  more 
decisive  on  this  question  than  on  the  other.  In  fact,  I think  we 
must  admit  that  Dr.  Dudley  has  established  his  main  point,  viz., 
that  the  softer  steel,  physically,  gives  the  slower  wear,  contrary  to 
general  belief  among  engineers  in  this  country. 

Of  course,  we  are  all  interested  in  the  whole  subject  from  a scien- 
tific standpoint,  but  as  the  discussion  has  been  participated  in  largely 
by  manufacturers  of  steel,  with  a business  animus,  and  as  they  have 
endeavored  to  overthrow  Dr.  Dudley’s  chemical  recommendations 
because  they  are  necessarily  the  most  vulnerable  points  in  the  paper, 
I wish  to  recall  attention  to  the  facts  of  the  physical  properties  as 
being  the  consumers  only  practical  guide,  and  as  affording  the  most 
conclusive  results  in  the  data  before  us. 

The  consumer  of  steel  rails  cannot  test  every  blow  chemically, 
but  he  can  do  so  physically,  and  it  is  my  opinion  that  a bending  test 
of  a whole  rail  section,  say  three  feet  long,  under  steady  pressure, 
instead  of  a drop,  with  a specified  deflection,  without  cracking,  and 
a load  not  to  be  exceeded  to  produce  this  deflection  for  each  rail 
section,  will  be  a good  practical  test,  not  burdensome  to  manufac- 
turers, and  one  that  will  insure  consumers  such  a degree  of  softness 
in  steel  as  they  may  desire. 

They  should  not  attempt  to  dictate  to  manufacturers  how  this 
degree  of  softness  shall  be  obtained  chemically,  but  allow  them  full 
freedom  to  do  as  they  please,  so  the  proper  physical  properties  are 
had.  Further,  we  are  now  in  possession  of  the  information  requisite 
to  make  such  specifications  with  the  certainty  of  greater  safety  as 
well  as  more  economical  results  in  the  life  of  rails. 

I have  recently  had  opportunities  at  Altoona,  to  see  other  and 
very  convincing  evidences  of  wear,  as  compared  with  physical  soft- 
ness. The  locomotive  driving-wheels  probably  cause  at  least  one- 
half  of  the  wear  of  rails,  and  the  forces  which  go  to  wear  the  rails 
from  the  tires,  must  react  with  similar  intensities  on  the  tires  them- 
selves. We  therefore  have  in  driving-wheel  tires,  an  opportunity 
to  see  the  wear  in  a more  concentrated  form,  so  to  speak,  or  with 
rates  as  well  as  differences  magnified.  I have  recently  found  differ- 
ences of  one  inch  to  two  inches  in  circumference  of  two  tires  on  the 
same  axle  when  coming  to  shop  for  turning,  and  it  is  invariably 
evident  that  the  smaller  tire  is  much  the  harder,  the  chips  from  it 
being  short  and  brittle,  while  chips  from  the  larger  tire  are  much 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


43 


longer  and  tougher.  In  the  worst  case  I have  observed,  viz., 
two  inches  difference  in  circumference,  this  difference  in  hardness,  as 
observed  from  the  cutting,  was  more  marked  than  in  the  other  cases. 
Tires  are  always  grouped  in  sets  by  the  manufacturers  from  their 
knowledge  of  the  chemical  composition  of  the  steel,  with  an  attempt 
to  get  those  in  one  set  which  have  the  same  degree  of  hardness,  so 
that  the  wear  shall  be  equal  all  around ; they  succeed  pretty  well 
on  the  average,  but  I have  been  noting  the  exceptions. 

Jacob  Reese,  Pittsburgh,  Pa.  : I have  been  very  much  inter- 
ested in  the  reading  and  discussion  of  Dr.  Dudley’s  paper.  As  far 
as  it  relates  to  the  data  of  work  performed  by  the  rails,  and  the 
determination  of  their  physical  and  chemical  properties,  I have 
nothing  but  commendation  of  Dr.  Dudley  to  express,  as  the  investi- 
gation covered  a greater  range,  and  was  performed  with  more  care 
in  detail,  than  any  similar  work  which  has  come  under  my  notice. 
But  I beg  leave  to  differ  with  Dr.  Dudley  in  his  conclusions. 

What  are  the  factors  of  hardness?  Are  they  not  carbon,  silicon, 
phosphorus,  and  manganese?  Now  it  is  an  undisputed  fact  among 
metallurgical  experts  that  pure  carbon  and  pure  iron  make  the  best 
steel  of  all  degrees  of  carburization,  and  for  all  purposes.  While 
carbon  hardens,  it  also  strengthens  the  metal,  but  silicon,  phosphorus, 
and  manganese,  in  hardening,  make  the  metal  also  brittle,  and  are 
injurious  in  any  amount.  Carbon  should  be  called  a streyigthener; 
and  I claim  that  a steel  rail  made  hard  with  carbon,  with  the  other 
three  hardeners  absent  or  reduced  to  a minimum,  will  carry  a greater 
tonnage  than  any  of  Dr.  Dudley’s  soft  rails. 

But  until  the  basic  process  is  put  into  operation  in  this  country  we 
cannot  expect  to  produce  Bessemer  or  open-hearth  steel  without  the 
presence  of  silicon,  phosphorus,  and  manganese,  in  considerable 
quantities,  and  I greatly  doubt  the  possibility  of  reducing  the  per- 
centage of  any  of  them  by  the  present  practice  without  seriously 
diminishing  the  output,  and  correspondingly  increasing  the  net  cost 
of  production  ; which  is  an  important  question,  since  the  increased 
life  of  the  rail  may  be  more  than  balanced  by  its  increased  cost. 

I think  that  the  soft  rails  performed  a greater  amount  of  work, 
because  they  contained  a less  amount  of  silicon,  phosphorus,  and 
manganese  ( brittlers , if  I may  so  term  them),  and  that  carbon  does 
not  reduce  the  wearing  capacity  of  rails.  I believe  that  a rail  made 
by  the  basic  process,  with  silicon,  phosphorus,  and  manganese  re- 
duced to  a minimum,  and  containing  0.60  carbon,  will  be  stronger 


44 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


and  tougher,  and  will  carry  double  the  tonnage  of  any  of  Dr.  Dud- 
ley’s soft  rails. 

C.  E.  Stafford,  Steelton,  Pa.  : I must  confess  ray  high  ap- 
preciation of  Dr.  Dudley’s  conscientious  and  painstaking  work,  and 
of  his  scientific  methods  in  obtaining  the  data;  but  with  his  method 
of  handling  these  results  and  with  his  conclusions  drawn  therefrom 
I cannot  agree.  The  reasons  for  this  difference  of  opinion  I will 
endeavor  to  explain. 

It  is  apparent  on  inspecting  his  Plates  6 and  7 that  the  majority 
of  the  slower-wearing  rails  are  from  the  north  track,  and  generally 
have  a longer  “time  of  service,”  a greater  average  tonnage  per  rail, 
and  a smaller  average  tonnage  per  year  per  rail  than  the  faster- 
wearing,  the  majority  of  which  are  from  the  south  track,  and  gener- 
ally have  a shorter  “ time  of  service,”  a smaller  average  tonnage  per 
rail,  and  a greater  average  tonnage  per  year  per  rail.  Have  these 
facts  any  significance  ? Have  these  differences  of  conditions  to  which 
they  are  subjected  any  bearing  on  the  relative  wearing  capacity  of 
these  rails  ? I venture  to  say  they  have.  I think,  after  a study  of 
Table  I (page  47),  (an  arrangement  of  lines  17  and  18,  Plate  8),  in 
connection  with  Plates  6 and  7,  we  will  find  that  the  slower  wear  of 
the  32  best  rails  is  only  partly  due  to  qualities  inherent  in  the  rails 
themselves,  but  is  principally  due  to  external  conditions  favorable  to 
slower  wear. 

In  regard  to  the  north  and  south  track,  we  know  that  over  the 
south  track  come  the  loaded  cars  from  the  west,  and  that  over  the 
north  track  these  cars  return,  most  of  them  empty.  It  is  evident 
that  this  means  for  the  north  track  a less  average  tonnage  per  rail 
per  year;  or,  in  other  words,  a lower-wheel  tonnage.  When  the 
load  per  wheel  is  less,  the  resistance  and  consequently  the  wear  must, 
necessarily,  be  less,  other  things  being  equal. 

“ Time  of  service,”  also,  has  an  important  bearing  on  the  question 
in  hand.  It  has  been  only  within  the  last  five  or  six  years,  as  Dr. 
Dudley  has  pointed  out,  that  the  roadbed  of  the  Pennsylvania  Rail- 
road has  reached  its  present  admirable  condition.  Before  this  time 
the  roadbed  was  more  elastic,  more  yielding  (and  probably  not  uni- 
formly so)  than  at  present.  These  circumstances  might  cause  a 
softer  rail  to  be  more  durable  than  a harder  one,  owing  to  the  fact 
that  it  would  yield  more  or  less  to  the  bending  force  of  the  passing 
load  and  would  thus  get  a bearing  on  each  cross-tie.  The  harder 
rail,  on  the  other  hand,  being  stiflfer  and  more  unyielding,  would  not 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


45 


have  this  bearing  uniformly,  and  would  thus,  to  a greater  or  less 
degree,  be  subjected  to  the  same  conditions  as  a beam  under  shock, 
vibration,  and  a rapidly  moving  load.  Under  such  conditions,  I 
believe,  a harder  rail  would  crush,  break,  and  perhaps  wear  out  more 
easily  and  quickly  than  a softer  rail.  This  agrees  with  Dr.  Dudley’s 
statement:  “ With  the  improvement  in  maintenance  of  way,  during  the 
last  five  or  six  years,  the  removal  of  rails  from  track  from  the  first  two 
of  these  causes  has  quite  notably  diminished.’7  Under  conditions  as 
they  now  exist  on  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad,  I believe,  the  harder 
rail  will  give  the  slower  wear.  With  the  ballast  comparatively  solid 
and  unyielding,  as  at  present,  the  rail,  having  a more  nearly  perfect 
and  uniform  bearing,  and  acting  less  the  part  of  a beam  than  that 
of  an  anvil  must,  in  my  opinion,  be  a hard  one,  to  withstand  the 
pounding  of  the  locomotive  and  the  abrasion  due  to  combined  rolling 
and  sliding  friction. 

Viewed  in  this  light  a hard  or  soft  rail  would  be  respectively 
preferable  as  the  maintenance  of  way  has  become  more  or  less  prac- 
tically perfect.  Of  the  seven  rails,  in  track  seven  years  or  less,  in- 
cluded in  the  slower- wearing  division,  and  whose  phosphorus  units 
average  40.95,  there  will  be  found  but  one  showing,  under  the  same 
conditions,  a slower  wear  for  the  softer  rail.  As  these  rails  were  put  in 
track  during  and  after  the  improvement  in  maintenance  of  way,  they 
tend  to  confirm  the  proposition  that  with  a well-ballasted  track  the 
harder  rails  give  the  slower  wear.  Next  under  the  head  of  “time 
of  service  77  comes  the  consideration  of  the  wheel  tonnage  (the  average 
tonnage  per  rail  per  year  in  Table  I).  This,  as  pointed  out  by  Mr. 
Ashbel  Welch,  has  been  increased  over  60  per  cent,  within  the  last 
five  or  six  years.  The  speed  and  the  weights  of  locomotives,  cars, 
and  trains  have  also  been  increased  within  this  period.  With  the 
increase  of  each  of  these  quantities  resistance  increases.  This  in- 
creased resistance  must  be  overcome  by  increased  friction  between 
drivers  and  track,  which,  other  conditions  being  the  same,  must 
result  in  greater  or  more  rapid  wear  than  formerly.  Further,  with 
greater  speed  and  weights  the  defects  in  the  rolling  stock — as  flat  and 
improperly  coned  wheels,  worn  tires,  etc. — must  cause  greater  injury 
to  the  rail.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  average  wheel  ton- 
nage of  the  north  track  is  less  than  that  of  the  south  track  during 
the  entire  period  considered. 

It  will  be  noticed,  in  Table  I,  that  the  average  tonnage  per  rail 
(not  the  average  tonnage  per  rail  per  year)  of  the  slower-wearing 
rails  is  much  greater  than  that  of  the  faster-wearing.  I call  atten- 


46 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


tion  to  this  fact  because  I believe  it  to  be  important.  We  know 
that  the  head  of  a rail  when  new,  is  more  or  less  rough,  and  that 
this  roughness  wears  off  rapidly  with  the  first  few  million  tons  of 
service;  consequently,  if  the  loss  is  determined  when  the  tonnage  is 
low,  the  loss  per  million  tons  will  not  show  the  actual  wearing  rate 
during  its  future  use.  Of  course,  this  influence  on  the  wearing  rate 
becomes  less  and  less,  as  the  tonnage  increases.  After  wearing  off 
this  roughness,  it  may  be  that  the  succeeding  few  million  tons  cold- 
roll  or  hammer  the  surface,  causing  it  to  more  successfully  resist  sub- 
sequent wear.  From  the  history  of  the  road  it  is  evident  that  those 
rails  having  a long  time  of  service  possess  advantages  in  favor  of 
slow  wear.  Not  only  have  they  a high  tonnage,  but  they  also  have 
had  a preparation  and  wear  of  the  surface  while  the  wheel  tonnage 
was  light ; the  later  rails  have,  on  the  other  hand,  been  subjected 
from  the  start  to  a heavier  wheel  tonnage  with  the  accompanying 
conditions  unfavorable  to  slow  wear.  Upon  the  relative  wear  on 
different  grades,  and  curves,  and  combinations  of  the  two,  it  is  un- 
necessary to  dwell. 

Having  tried  to  make  plain  the  tendency  of  each  of  these  condi- 
tions, I will  now  tabulate  them : 


Conditions  Favorable  to  Slower  Wear. 

North  track. 

Lighter  wheel  tonnage. 

Longer  time  of  service. 

Greater  tonnage. 

Lighter  grade. 

Lower  degree  curve. 


Conditions  Unfavorable  to  Slower  Wear. 
South  track. 

Heavier  wheel  tonnage. 

Shorter  time  of  service. 

Smaller  tonnage. 

Heavier  grade. 

Higher  degree  curve. 


I do  not  say  these  conditions  will  absolutely  determine  the  rela- 
tive positions  of  the  64  rails,  because  we  do  not  know  the  ratio  of 
the  wear  of  a giveiurail  under  a known  set  of  conditions  (favorable, 
or  unfavorable,  or  both),  to  the  wear  of  the  same  rail  under  another 
known  set  of  conditions;  also  because  of  conditions  not  given  in  the 
data,  and  because  of  exceptions  named  below.  But  what  I have 
tried  to  make  plain  in  the  preceding  remarks  is  that,  in  general,  the 
32  best  rails  have  been  in  service  under  conditions,  in  the  main, 
favorable  to  slower  wear.  When  this  is  not  the  case,  the  rail,  meas- 
ured by  phosphorus  units,  is  hard,  and  with  one  exception  (rail  915 
referred  to  later),  harder  than  its  companion  subjected,  as  far  as 
known,  to  the  same  conditions. 

To  put  it  more  concisely,  the  slower  wear  of  the  32  best  rails  is 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


47 


due  to  external  conditions,  which,  when  summed  up,  are  favorable 
to  slower  wear,  and  not  to  qualities  inherent  in  the  rails  them- 
selves; except  in  a few  cases,  and  these  when  the  rails  are  hard.  If 
this  statement  is  true,  then  Dr.  Dudley’s  conclusion,  that  the  slower 
wear  of  the  32  best  rails  is  due  to  their  being  softer  than  the  32 
faster  wearing  does  not  hold. 

With  the  object  of  learning  further  what  averages  of  these  64  rails 
may  point  out  to  us,  I have  arranged  them  differently,  as  seen  in 
Table  II.  We  may  thus  be  able  to  learn  whether  the  indications 
of  the  first  averages  are  confirmed  or  not ; or  whether  the  first  aver- 
ages, when  studied  with  the  second,  may  fairly  be  interpreted  to 
point  to,  or  at  least  not  disprove,  conclusions  radically  differing  from 
those  first  drawn. 


TABLE  I. 


j North  track. 

| South  track. 

Total. 

Average  time 
of  service. 

Av.  wear  per 
million  tons. 

Average 
tonnage  per 
rail. 

Average  ton 
per  rail,  per 
year. 

C. 

P. 

Si. 

Mn. 

Phos.  units. 

All  conditions, 

slower-wearing. 

22 

10 

32 

9 y. — 5%m. 

.0506 

53,737,156 

5,686,104 

.334 

.077 

.060 

.491 

31.3 

All  conditions, 

faster-wearing. 

10 

22 

32 

6 0 

.1028 

40,406,260 

1 

6,730,871 

.390 

.106 

.047 

.647 

38.9 

TABLE  II. 


N.  track  rails 

32 

0 

32 

9 5% 

.0638 

46,545,146 

4,906,225 

.329 

.071 

.064 

.508 

31.4 

S.  track  rails 

0 

32 

32 

5 11% 

.0740 

47,285,770 

7,978,227 

.395 

.111 

.043 

.631 

38.9 

In  Table  I,  which  we  have  just  been  considering,  Dr.  Dudley  has 
found  that  32  rails  of  a certain  average  chemical  composition,  show 
a much  slower  wear  than  32  rails  of  a different  average  chemical 
composition.  The  32  slower-wearing  rails  averaging  softer  than  the 
32  faster-wearing,  the  conclusion  is  drawn  that  this  slower  wear  is 
due  to  this  fact.  Apparently,  this  inference  is  true,  but  as  we  have 
just  seen,  this  slower  wear  is  probably  due  to  other  causes.  In 
Table  II  we  have  a comparison  of  rails  in  the  north  and  south  track. 
This  gives  us  hard  and  soft  rails  averaging  practically  the  same 
chemically  as  those  in  Table  I,  but  showing  a decided  difference  in 
the  wear  per  million  tons,  comparing  the  soft  and  hard  of  the  one 
with  the  soft  and  hard  of  the  other,  respectively  ; also,  in  the  ratio 
of  wear  between  the  soft  and  hard  of  each.  In  Table  I this  ratio  is 
1 to  2.03;  in  Table  II,  1 to  1.16.  Even  this  slight  difference  prob- 
ably would  not  have  appeared  if  the  north  and  south  rails  had 


48 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


been  equal  in  number  in  both  curves  and  tangents.  By  consulting 
Dr.  Dudley’s  Plates  6 and  7 the  distribution  will  be  found  to  be  as 
follows:  In  tangents,  19  north  track  rails  and  13  south;  in  curves, 
only  13  north  track  rails  and  19  south.  As  it  is,  the  south  track 
rails  with  a wheel  tonnage  (average  tonnage  per  rail  per  year)  62J 
percent,  greater,  there  is  a wear  only  16  per  cent,  greater;  and  this 
with  nearly  equal  average  rail  tonnage  in  both.  With  these  circum- 
stances in  mind  we  may  fairly  conclude  from  Table  II  that,  under 
the  same  conditions,  the  harder  rails  would  give  the  better  wear, 
which  indication  Table  I does  not  contradict.  This  conclusion, 
like  the  one  before,  is  in  favor  of  the  harder  rails. 

We  have  considered  the  conditions  furnished  by  Dr.  Dudley 
favorable  and  unfavorable  to  slower  wear.  That  there  are  other 
conditions  which  materially  affect  the  relative  wear  of  rails  will 
readily  occur  to  all. 

Among  others,  in  addition  to  those  given,  are  the  following : 
Whether  the  speed  is  the  same  over  all  of  the  rails  ; whether  the  rail 
is  subjected  to  more  than  ordinary  wear  by  the  stopping  and  starting 
of,  or  by  the  decreasing  or  the  increasing  of  the  speed  of  trains,  as 
at  or  near  train  and  watering  stations,  switches,  crossings,  sidings, 
bridges,  tunnels,  grades,  curves,  etc.;  whether  on  tangents  both  sides 
of  track  at  the  same  place  are  at  the  same  level ; whether  on  curve, 
the  rail  is  taken  near  entering  tangent  or  elsewhere;  whether  the 
elevation  of  the  outer  rail  in  each  case  corresponds  to  the  average 
speed  of  trains  at  that  curve;  whether  the  character  and  condition  of 
ballast  and  roadbed  is  the  same  for  all  rails;  and  other  conditions 
known  to  those  familiar  with  maintenance  of  way. 

These  conditions,  more  or  less  local  in  their  character  have,  it* 
seems  to  me,  been  too  little  considered  in  the  study  of  “ the  wearing 
capacity  of  steel  rails  with  relation  to  their  chemical  composition 
and  physical  properties.” 

With  these  circumstances  in  mind  we  must  agree  with  Mr.  Hunt 
that  “ averages  are  dangerous.”  In  comparing  different  sets  of  rails, 
when,  in  each  set,  varying  quantities  (conditions)  too  indefinite  to 
be  averaged  or  not  averageable  are  associated  with  others  which  are 
definite  and  can  be  averaged,  and  when  the  maximum  and  minimum 
in  one  set  are  greater  and  less  respectively  than  the  maximum  and 
minimum  of  the  other,  and  where  a quantity  in  one  rail  differs 
greatly  from  the  other  rails  in  the  same  set,  making  the  average  to 
differ  widely  from  any  quantity  of  the  same  kind  in  that  set,  can 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


49 


averages  give  conclusions  which  can  reasonably  be  accepted  as  true  be- 
yond a doubt  ? I do  not  think  they  can.  We  have  seen  that  widely 
different  conclusions  can  he  drawn  from  indications  given  by  aver- 
ages made  up  from  different  arrangements  of  the  same  rails.  In- 
deed, I believe,  that  conclusions  drawn  from  averages  made  up 
from  any  number  of  rails  under  so  many  and  such  different  condi- 
tions would  be  of  value  only  when  confirmed  by  other  data. 

To  properly  study  the  relative  wearing  capacity  of  steel  rails  with 
reference  to  their  chemical  composition  and  physical  properties,  we 
must  compare  rails  subject  to  the  same  conditions,  as  far  as  is  practical, 
and  which  only  vary  in  their  chemical  composition  and  physical 
properties.  I have  attempted  to  do  this  in  the  following  table,  made 
up  from  Dr.  Dudley’s  level  and  grade  tangents  and  grade  curves. 
The  members  of  each  group  have  been  in  the  same  track  the  same 
time,  are  from  the  same  locality,  and  have  the  same  grade  and  cur- 
vature (if  any) ; or,  in  other  words,  have  been  subjected  to  the  same 
conditions,  as  far  as  known.  It  will  be  noticed  that  Nos.  893,  920, 
and  928  of  the  level  and  grade  tangents  have  been  omitted,  and  also 


No.  of 
group. 

3 

<M 

O 

6 

ime  of  ser- 
vice. 

o 

a> 

ci 

£ 

d 

> 

u 

d 

d 

9 

3 

o 

'3 

2 

CO 

O 

X 

Loss  per 
yard. 

^osss  per 
million 
tons. 

Ratio  of  j 

Loss. 
Harder  ! 
rail  = 1.  i 

& 

EH 

& 

o 

Eh 

Y.  M. 

1 

\ 

i 

r 88i 
882 

11  1 
11  1 

North. 

92.4 

55,546,811 

59.2 

28.1 

3.85 

5.78 

.0693 

.1040 

1 : 1.50 

2 

\ 

'883 

884 

10  2 
10  2 

« 

95.04 

52,174,969 

35.7 

32.7 

2.54 

2.13 

.0487 

.0408 

1:  .83 

3 

; 

’885 

886 

11 

11 

“ 

89.76 

55,197,994 

33.9 

27.9 

2.74 

4.48 

.0496 

.0811 

1 : 1.6334 

4 

J 

i 

' 887 
888 

11 

11 

“ 

89.76 

55,197,994 

24.2 

21.3 

2.13 

3.44 

.0386 

.0623 

1 : 1.61 

5 

! 

r 889 
890 

5 11 

5 11 

South. 

21.13 

44,620,100 

33.1 

41.7 

3.54 

3.64 

.0793 

.0816 

1 : .97 

6 

\ 

[ 891 
[892 

7 1 

7 1 

u 

40.13 

53,687,192 

37.7 

33.7 

3.14 

3.46 

.0585 

.0644 

1 : 1.10 

i 

[894 

5 2 

“ 

45.9 

2.93 

.0769 

1 : 1.0334 

1 : 1.04 34 

7 

] 

895 

5 2 

“ 

52.8 

38,088,574 

45.5 

3.03 

.0796 

1 

[896 

5 2 

“ 

40.5 

3.04 

.0798 

8 

r9i3 

914 

9 4 

9 4 

North. 

45,855,101 

33.4 

26.9 

1.01 

1.32 

.0220 

.0288 

1 : 1.31 

9 

: 

1 915 
923 

6 1 

6 1 

“ 

31,514,889 

39.2 

45.5 

0.51 

2.92 

.0162 

.0926 

1 : 0.17^ 

10 

j 

\ 916 
l 917 

6 

6 

“ 

31,127,829 

37.5 

45.1 

1.42 

0.20 

.0456 

.0064 

1 : 7.12% 

11 

: 

r 9i8 

1 919 

10  6 
10  6 

“ 

51,720,011 

% 29.9 
20.3 

0.71 

0.51 

.0137 

.0098 

1 : 0.71% 

12 

: 

[921 
' 922 

5 4 

5 4 

« 

27,622,230 

37.9 

44.7 

3.05 

2.03 

.1104 

.0735 

1 : 1.50 

13 

; 

\ 924 
i 925 

4 1 

4 1 

South. 

36,349,989 

44.2 

43.8 

1.52 

1.73 

.0418 

.0476 

1 : 1.14 

14 

: 

1926 

[927 

9 3 

9 3 

“< 

76,409,123 

30.2 

28.1 

1.53 
| 1.73 

.0200 

.0226 

1 : 1.13 

15 

: 

f 897 
[898 

11  2 
11  2 

North 

(high 

side). 

21.12 

5° 

52,370,617 

33.2 

28.1 

7.31 

6.99 

CO  CO 

So  co 

1 : .96 

16 

i 

[ 899 
[900 

11  2 
11  2 

North 

(low 

side). 

21.12 

5° 

52,370,617 

22.3 

32.2 

2.24 

2.44 

f 

.0428 

.0466 

1 : .92 

7 


50 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


all  of  level  and  grade  carves  excepting  Nos.  897,  898,  899,  and  900, 
because  of  the  impossibility  of  grouping  them  in  the  same  manner, 
no  two  having  the  chemical  composition  and  physical  properties  as 
the  only  variables.  Phosphorus  units  have  been  taken  to  show  the 
relative  hardness. 

Of  these  16  groups,  10  decidedly  indicate  slower  wear  for  the 
harder  rail. 

Of  the  remaining  6 groups,  three  (groups  2,  9,  and  15)  come  well 
within  the  limits  of  error  (.25  pound  per  yard)  inherent  in  the  cal- 
culation of  the  data  as  pointed  out  by  Dr.  Dudley;  they  cannot, 
therefore,  be  considered  as  exceptions.  Groups  2 and  15  are  but 
little  outside  of  the  limits  of  error.  Rail  923  of  group  9 is  obviously 
abnormal.  This  is  probably  due  to  its  being  overheated,  which  the 
chemical  analysis  shows  might  easily  be  the  case,  and  which  the 
physical  tests  and  its  low  specific  gravity  tend  to  confirm.  We  may 
say,  then,  that  13  of  these  16  groups  fairly  indicate,  if  they  do  not 
definitely  point  out,  that,  under  the  same  conditions,  the  harder  rail 
gives  the  slower  wear. 

Of  course,  these  comparisons  are  too  few  to  enable  us  to  arrive  at 
positive  conclusions ; but  indications  thus  obtained  are,  I believe, 
far  more  valuable  and  trustworthy  than  those  that  averages  would 
give  us,  made  up  from  any  number  of  rails  under  many  different 
conditions. 

Finally,  it  seems  to  me,  that  the  conclusions  arrived  at  earlier  in 
my  remarks,  together  with,  and  confirmed  by  the  last,  show  strong 
evidence  that,  under  the  same  conditions,  the  harder  rail  will  give 
the  slower  wear. 

O.  Chanute,  New  York  City:  We  are  very  much  obliged,  I 
am  sure,  to  Mr.  Sandberg  for  his  paper  upon  “Rail  Specifications 
and  Rail  Inspection  in  Europe.”  We  have  in  the  United  States 
hitherto  been  inspecting  rails  somewhat  haphazard,  and  we  are  glad 
to  get  the  results  of  Mr.  Sandberg’s  long  experience. 

We  recognize  that  he  was  among  the  first,  if  not  the  very  first,  to 
apply  more  rational  and  scientific  rules  to  the  designing  of  iron  rails, 
and,  more  recently,  to  adapt  these  rules  to  the  designing  of  steel 
rails,  to  conform  to  the  capabilities  and  requirements  of  this  new 
material.  Although  we  have  generally  adopted,  in  this  country, 
sections  for  steel  rails  which  many  of  our  railway  men  think  even 
better  than  those  of  Mr.  Sandberg,  he  is  nevertheless  the  leader  in 
whose  footsteps  we  have  followed  ever  since  it  has  been  established 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


51 


that  the  fish-joint  was  the  best  method  of  fastening  the  rails  together 
at  the  ends. 

We  have  not,  however,  yet  been  able  to  formulate  or  to  adopt  any 
well-established  relation  between  the  height  and  weight  of  the  rail 
and  the  weight  and  speed  of  the  engines,  such  as  he  indicates  in  his 
Table  No.  I.  For  instance,  the  New  York  Central  rail  is  4J  inches 
deep,  and  weighs  65  pounds  per  yard,  while  its  locomotives  are  of 
37  tons  maximum  weight.  The  Erie  rail  is  4T6e  inches  deep,  with 
63  pounds  weight  per  yard,  and  the  Pennsylvania  rail  is  4J  inches 
deep,  with  67  pounds  weight  per  yard,  while  the  maximum  weight 
of  locomotives  upon  both  these  latter  lines  is  50  tons.  Now  which 
is  right?  I am  inclined  to  believe  that  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad 
follows  the  better  practice,  not  because  the  other  rails  are  too  light 
for  the  engines,  but  because  inasmuch  as  steel  rails  wear  out  by 
abrasion,  and  not  by  lamination,  the  Pennsylvania  rail  promises  to 
be  serviceable  until  about  12  pounds  of  metal  per  yard  are  worn  off 
from  the  head,  while  the  Erie  rail  will  probably  have  to  be  removed 
from  the  track  when  some  8J  pounds  are  worn  off. 

Timber  is  still  so  cheap  with  us  that  we  have  not  hitherto  con- 
cerned ourselves  very  greatly  about  the  strength  of  our  rails  consid- 
ered as  beams.  If  after  having  adopted  a rail  section,  say  between 
50  and  60  pounds,  we  have  found  it  a little  too  limber  under 
increasing  weight  of  locomotives,  we  have  simply  put  the  ties  nearer 
together,  and  we  have  thus  arrived  at  the  general  practice  of  spacing 
them  about  2 feet  between  centres,  while  I notice  that  Mr.  Sand- 
berg’s calculations  of  required  stiffness  are  based  upon  having  the 
supports  3 feet  apart. 

We  are  careful,  however,  to  limit  the  weight  upon  our  driving- 
wheels  to  a maximum  of  12,000  pounds  (excepting  a few  experi- 
mental locomotives),  and  when  our  gradients  and  trains  require  more 
adhesion  than  can  be  obtained  from  the  standard  “ American” 
engine,  we  think  it  better  to  adopt  the  “ Mogul  ” type,  with  6 
drivers,  or  the  “ Consolidation,”  with  8 drivers ; the  latter  having 
generally  an  average  of  but  11,000  pounds  per  driving-wheel,  and 
being  no  harder  on  the  rail  than  other  classes  of  locomotives. 

Believing  that  much  of  the  wear  of  rails  results  from  undue 
pressures,  I have  made  some  experiments  to  determine  the  area  of 
the  surfaces  in  contact  between  wheels  and  rails.  These  were  ob- 
tained by  jacking  up  a wheel,  and  introducing  between  it  and  the 
rail  a piece  of  thin  tissue-paper,  underlaid  with  a slip  of  black 
manifold  copying-paper.  Upon  lowering  the  wheel,  it  generally 


52 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


crushes  a hole  in  the  paper,  and  gives  a fair  impression  of  the  sur- 
faces in  contact.  If  the  wheel  and  rail  were  inelastic,  this  contact 
would  be  a mere  line,  but  as  they  both  yield,  it  becomes  a surface 
which  varies  with  the  weight  on  the  wheel  and  with  its  condition. 

I found  that  with  11,000  to  12,000  pounds’  weight  upon  a loco- 
motive driving-wheel  of  about  5 feet  diameter  the  pressures  were 
generally  35,000  to  40,000  pounds  to  the  square  inch,  although  they 
occasionally  ran  up  much  beyond  this,  but  that  with  14,000  pounds 
on  a driver  the  pressures  became  from  50,000  to  80,000  pounds  to 
the  inch,  or  beyond  the  elastic  limit  even  of  steel. 

I also  found  that  under  empty  freight  cars,  with  say  2400  pounds 
on  a 33-inch  wheel,  the  pressures  were  generally  20,000  to  30,000 
pounds  per  square  inch;  that  with  the  car  loaded  with  11  tons, 
increasing  the  weight  to  say  5150  pounds  per  wheel,  these  pressures 
became  about  35,000  pounds  to  the  inch,  while  if  the  car  was  loaded 
with  20  tons,  thus  giving  7400  pounds  per  wheel,  the  pressures 
increased  to  50,000  or  60,000  pounds  to  the  square  inch. 

As  we  increase  the  weight  upon  our  cars,  therefore, — and  I believe 
this  to  be  the  correct  and  inevitable  practice, — we  must  be  prepared 
to  find  our  steel  rails  wear  out  faster  than  they  hitherto  have  done. 
We  may,  perhaps,  reduce  the  pressure  by  increasing  the  diameter  of 
car-wheels,  but  my  own  judgment  is  that  we  should  endeavor  to 
limit  the  weight  on  locomotive-drivers  of  5 feet  diameter  to  12,000 
pounds,  and  on  33-inch  car-wheels  to  about  7000  pounds,  so  as  not 
to  bring  crushing  strains  upon  our  rails  and  wheels. 

I notice  that  Mr.  Sandberg  is  disposed  to  think  that  our  adoption 
of  30  feet  as  a normal  rail  length  is  an  extreme  limit.  I believe, 
however,  that  our  mills  have  found  no  difficulty  in  working  up  to 
this,  and  that  we  get  only  about  3 per  cent,  of  shorter  rails,  under 
the  provision  that  not  more  than  10  per  cent,  may  be  delivered 
under  30  feet,  down  to  25  feet.  The  difficulties  which  he  mentions, 
as  connected  with  ocean  transportation  of  30-feet  rails,  need  not 
concern  us  much  at  the  present  time.  I believe  that  the  iron 
rail  mills  of  this  country  have  the  capacity  for  turning  out  about 
1,000,000  of  tons  a year,  if  so  many  tons  of  iron  rails  were  called 
for,  and  that  the  steel  mills  have  a present  capacity  of  about 
1,500,000  tons,  and  a prospective  capacity,  by  the  end  of  this 
year,  of  some  1,750,000  tons  of  steel  rails  per  annum.  Now  this 
would  furnish  us  enough  rails,  if  fully  employed,  to  lay  or  to 
relay  25,000  to  27,000  miles  of  track  a year.  We  now  have  93,000 
miles  of  railway,  of  which  about  60,000  miles  are  ten  years  old 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


53 


and  over.  Allowing  for  the  postponement  of  renewals  in  past  years, 
double  tracks,  etc.,  I estimate  that  these  railways  will  require 
some  800,000  to  900,000  tons  of  rails  per  annum  for  the  next  four 
or  five  years,  to  relay  their  tracks.  We  are  also  building  some  7000 
miles  of  new  railway  a year,  a rate  of  progress,  however,  which  I 
believe  we  cannot  maintain  without  great  risk  of  running  into  un- 
profitable investments,  and  bringing  about  a fresh  collapse;  but 
even  if  we  do  build  7000  miles  a year,  the  aggregate  demands  for 
rails  in  the  United  States,  would  not  exceed  1,500,000  or  1,600,000 
tons  a year,  or  a little  less  than  the  estimated  capacity  of  the  steel 
works  alone  for  1882. 

We  are  not  likely,  therefore,  to  import  many  rails  from  Europe, 
except  occasionally  on  an  emergency,  and  as  a reminder  to  our  manu- 
facturers that  there  are  other  railmakers  in  the  world  ; but  if  we  do, 
let  us  not  ask  the  foreign  mills  to  grind  off  the  ends  of  the  rails,  to 
make  them  exactly  of  even  length,  a foreign  practice  which  Mr. 
Sandberg  so  justly  warns  us  against.  Neither  shall  we  ask  them  to 
notch  steel  rails,  except  in  rare  instances,  as  most  of  our  roads  have 
now  adopted,  or  are  adopting,  angle  fish-plates,  to  which  the  notch- 
ing is  transferred,  thus  preventing  creeping  through  the  shearing 
resistance  of  the  bolts;  but  we  shall  undoubtedly  require  them  to 
drill  all  holes  for  the  latter,  and  we  find  that  a round  hole,  one  inch 
in  diameter,  with  a } inch  bolt,  allows  sufficient  play  to  provide  for 
contraction  and  expansion. 

I made  some  experiments  upon  rail  joints  some  years  [ago,  which 
indicated  rather  better  results  than  those  given  in  Mr.  Sandberg’s 
Table  No.  I,  Appendix,  II.  I found  that  the  Erie  standard  steel 
rail,  of  63  pounds  weight  per  yard,  upon  solid  bearings  two  feet 
apart  in  the  clear,  required  the  application  of  a weight  of  60  tons 
on  the  head  in  the  centre  between  the  bearings  to  break  it;  that  the 
old  joint,  composed  of  two  flat  plates,  broke  with  20  tons  similarly 
applied;  that  the  composite  joint,  consisting  of  one  flat  plate  and 
one  angle  plate,  broke  with  a weight  of  25  tons,  while  the  Erie 
standard  joint,  of  two  angle-plates  24  inches  long,  required  34  tons 
to  break  it.  The  flat-plate  fishing  was,  therefore,  33  per  cent.,  the 
composite  joint  41  per  cent.,  and  the  standard  angle-joint  57  per  cent., 
as  strong  as  the  solid  rail,  and  the  angle-plate  fish  showed  such  marked 
superiority,  that  our  adoption  of  it  was  fully  confirmed. 

But  we  are  especially  obliged  to  Mr.  Sandberg,  for  the  details  and 
blank  forms  which  he  gives  us  of  his  method  of  inspection.  I wish 
particularly  to  call  your  attention  to  athe  blank  for  the  inspection 


54 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


book,  Appendix  IV,  and  to  the  form  for  reports,  Appendix  V.  I 
think  it  would  be  well  for  us  to  adopt  them  fgr  the  use  of  our  own 
inspectors  in  this  country. 

I do  not,  however,  quite  understand  that  clause  in  his  specification 
for  steel  rails  (page  30),  which,  under  the  head  of  “ Tests,”  provides 
that:  “2d,  The  rails  must  carry,  in  the  same  position,  a load  of  — 
tons  without  breaking;  after  this  the  flange  of  the  rail  will  be  cut, 
and  the  rail  broken.  The  fracture  must  show  perfect  welding, 
especially  in  the  head.”  I thought  it  was  a peculiarity  of  steel 
rails,  that  they  were  made  from  a single  piece  or  ingot,  and  I am 
puzzled  to  imagine  how  the  foreign  makers  contrive  to  get  welds 
into  them. 

You  will  notice  that  nearly  all  my  remarks  refer  to  steel  rails.  I 
ought  to  have  said  so  before,  but  the  fact  is,  that  when  we  now  talk 
or  think  of  rails,  it  is  almost  always  of  steel  rails,  for  the  days  of 
iron  rails  are  numbered.  Already  we  see,  when  we  examine  one  of 
these  diagrams  of  prices  of  iron  and  steel  rails,  which  look  so  much 
like  the  profile  of  a railway  preliminary  survey  through  a moun- 
tainous country,  that  the  iron  rails  average  only  $5  or  at  most  $10 
a ton  cheaper  than  steel  rails;  and  the  time  cannot  be  far  distant 
when  steel  rails  will  be  produced  as  cheaply  as  iron.  Indeed,  I do 
not  believe  that  any  of  our  roads  are  now  so  poor  as  to  be  able  to 
afford  to  buy  iron  rails,  except,  as  I said  before,  upon  an  emer- 
gency. 

The  thanks  and  support  of  all  railway  men  are  therefore  due  to 
Dr.  Dudley  for  his  resolute  attempt  to  ascertain  the  best  composition 
and  characteristics  for  steel  rails.  He  may  not  as  yet  have  gath- 
ered all  the  necessary  data ; his  present  conclusions  may  have  to  be 
corrected  with  reference  to  further  facts ; but  1 know  that  he  is  ren- 
dering valuable  service,  and  I believe  that  he  is  on  the  right  track. 

I quite  agree  with  the  remark  made  by  Mr.  William  Sellers,  that 
the  consumer  should  not  undertake  to  prescribe  to  the  manufacturer 
how  he  is  to  make  his  rails,  nor  what  materials  he  is  to  employ,  but 
should  leave  him  free  to  select  the  surest  and  cheapest  way  of  making 
a good  article.  The  consumer  is  interested  in  the  results  only;  but 
as  the  desired  result  in  this  case  is  that  the  rail  shall  wear  as  long  as 
possible,  and  as  steel  rails  wear  out  so  slowly  that  we  cannot  know 
for  many  years  which  make  of  them  is  going  to  give  the  very  best 
satisfaction;  and  while  the  economical  results  are  so  important,  I 
believe  that  it  is  our  duty  to  endeavor  to  ascertain  the  characteristics 
of  the  best  rails,  to  assist  the  manufacturer  to  repeat  his  successes, 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


55 


and  to  avoid  his  failures,  by  giving  him  whatever  data  we  can  gather 
as  to  the  rails  in  our  tracks. 

This,  as  I understand,  is  what  Dr.  Dudley  has  undertaken  to  do, 
by  ascertaining  the  chemical  composition  and  physical  characteristics 
of  the  rails  which  have  best  or  worst  worn  on  the  Pennsylvania 
Railroad.  While  I will  presently  mention  some  considerations 
why  his  experiments  may  need,  to  be  revised,  I yet  recognize  that 
he  has  done  and  is  doing  a great  public  service. 

I must  say,  however,  that  the  chemical  composition  which  he 
recommends,  does  not  strike  me  as  a particularly  soft  steel.  From 
the  criticism  which  he  has  received  here,  I doubt  whether  Dr. 
Dudley  himself  now  thinks  that  he  has  as  soft  a thing  as  he  at  first 
imagined.  He  advises  that  the  phosphorus  should  not  exceed  0.10 
of  one  per  cent.,  the  silicon  not  above  0.04,  and  that  the  carbon 
should  aim  at  0.30,  and  the  manganese  at  0.35  of  1 per  cent. 

Now  the  Erie  specification  of  1876,  adopted  after  consultation 
with  Mr.  Holley,  reads  : “ Not  less  than  T^0ths  nor  more  than 
jYoths  of  1 per  cent,  of  carbon  ; not  more  than  y^-ths  of  1 percent, 
of  phosphorus,  and  not  more  than  ^gths  of  1 per  cent,  of  phos- 
phorus and  silicon  taken  together.  It  may  contain  manganese,  but 
shall  be  substantially  free  from  other  impurities.” 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  this  was  the  state  of  the  art  about  the  time 
Dr.  Dudley  began  his  labors,  and  that  really  soft  steel,  that  which 
we  use  for  our  boiler  plates,  only  contains  0.08  to  0.15  of  1 per  cent, 
of  carbon,  the  term  of  “soft  steel”  which  is  much  dwelt  upon  by 
the  author,  is  rather  a misnomer.  What  he  is  engaged  upon  is  the 
ascertaining  what  are  the  exact  chemical  compositions  which  gives 
absolutely  the  best  rails,  and  how  these  shall  be  distinguished  by 
physical  tests.  To  accomplish  this  satisfactorily,  he  will  have  to 
gather  a good  many  more  data. 

I think  exception  may  be  taken  to  the  method  by  which  Dr. 
Dudley  has  undertaken  to  ascertain  the  loss  of  weight  sustained  by 
each  rail.  Having  taken  up  the  whole  rail,  presumably  about  30 
feet  long,  he  has  cut  out  a slice  from  it,  somewhere,  J an  inch  thick, 
and  from  this  slice  he  has,  by  weighing  and  measuring,  ascertained 
the  loss  of  weight.  Any  one  who  will  caliper  a worn  rail  throughout 
its  whole  length,  and  thus  ascertain  how  much  greater  is  the  wear 
in  some  spots  than  in  others  (differing  of  an  inch  in  sections  2 
inches  apart  in  many  cases),  will  have  serious  doubts  whether  Dr. 
Dudley  has  in  each  case  hit  upon  the  particular  half  inch  which  is 
a fair  representation  of  that  wear. 


56 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


It  seems  also  difficult  to  accept  the  inference  to  which  this  method 
of  procedure  leads  him,  when  he  says  that  “ rails  rolled  at  the  same 
mill,  at  the  same  time,  and  with  the  same  thickness  of  web,  and 
same  shape  of  foot,  differed  from  each  other  in  the  original  weight 
(as  computed),  from  1 J to  3 pounds  per  yard.”  Such  is  not  our  ex- 
perience with  Erie  rails.  We  find  that  when  the  rolls  are  freshly 
turned  up,  the  rails  run  about  62}  pounds  per  yard,  and  that  this 
weight  is  gradually  increased  as  the  rolls  wear,  to  about  63}  pounds 
per  yard  ; each  invoice  of  say  1000  tons  (the  shipments  are  gener- 
ally of  about  this  amount),  averaging  as  near  as  may  be  the  63 
pounds  per  yard  represented  by  the  standard  template.  Here,  there- 
fore, we  have  a variation  of  only  } pound  per  yard,  which  is  the 
limit  assigned  by  our  specification,  and  as  I said  before,  it  seems 
hard  to  believe  that  on  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad,  it  could  have 
been  so  much  as  1}  to  3 pounds  per  yard. 

I scarcely  need  to  point  out  that  if  errors  have  thus  crept  into 
Dr.  Dudley’s  estimates  of  the  loss  of  weight  sustained  by  each  rail, 
his  reasoning  and  conclusions  will  be  affected  throughout.  I recog- 
nize the  difficulty  of  getting  at  the  wear  of  a rail  the  exact  original 
weight  of  which  is  not  known,  but  I believe  Dr.  Dudley  will  yet 
find  better  methods  than  that  of  computing  it  from  a half-inch  slice. 
Perhaps  more  satisfactory  results  may  be  reached  by  a careful  cali- 
pering of  the  stem,  head,  and  foot  of  the  rail,  and  ascertaining 
its  density,  from  which  to  deduce  its  original  weight,  deducting 
therefrom,  to  ascertain  the  wear,  the  actual  weight  of  the  worn 
rail.  In  fact,  as  he  finally  resorted  to  the  method  of  averages,  Dr. 
Dudley  would  have  reached  nearly  the  same  result  by  assuming 
that  the  rails  originally  averaged  of  standard  weight,  and  weighing 
together  each  group  of  eight  rails,  upon  which  he  bases  his  deduc- 
tions of  wear. 

I may  also  say  a word  as  to  the  comparisons  of  wear  upon  the 
upper  and  lower  sides  of  curves.  These  would  have  been  more  satis- 
factory if  we  had  been  told  the  differences,  if  any,  which  exist  be- 
tween the  elevation  of  the  outer  rail  on  these  various  curves;  also,  the 
speeds  at  which  trains  generally  run  over  them.  The  elevation  of 
the  outer  rail  being  intended  to  overcome  the  centrifugal  force,  and 
this,  of  course,  varying  with  the  speed  of  the  train,  it  is  quite  practi- 
cable for  the  track  foreman  to  throw  the  wear  upon  the  inner  or  the 
outer  rail,  by  changing  the  elevation,  or,  in  a less  degree,  for  the 
locomotive  engineer  to  do  the  same  thing,  by  running  faster  or 
slower  than  the  speed  for  which  the  curve  is  elevated.  I hope,  how- 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


57 


ever,  that  Dr.  Dudley  will  check  over  and  continue  his  investiga- 
tion. It  is  not  improbable  that  the  result  will  be  still  further  to 
confirm  his  theory. 

The  railroad  men  of  the  whole  country,  who  are  specially  inter- 
ested in  reaching  sound  conclusions  on  this  subject,  can  materially 
assist  in  gathering  additional  data,  by  taking  care  to  preserve  rails 
which  have  worn  exceptionally  well  or  ill  in  their  tracks,  and  send- 
ing them,  with  a statement  of  the  particulars  of  each  case,  either 
to  Dr.  Dudley,  if  he  will  consent  to  test  them,  or  to  some  of  the 
Bessemer  works  from  which  they  obtain  their  steel.  All  of  these 
have  competent  chemists ; they  are  vitally  interested  in  maintain- 
ing a reputation  for  making  good  steel  rails,  and  they  would  doubt- 
less be  glad  to  make  arrangements  to  analyze  and  test  any  specimen 
rail  which  might  be  sent  to  them,  in  order  to  ascertain  the  causes  of 
its  excellence  or  deficiencies. 

In  listening  to  Dr.  Holley’s  paper  upon  Rail  Sections,  I was 
reminded  of  De  Quincey’s  ideal  murderer,  who,  beginning  with  a 
murder  which  he  thought  little  of  at  the  time,  had  gradually 
fallen  to  robbing,  drinking,  and  Sabbath  breaking,  and  so  on, 
down  to  incivility  and  procrastination.  For  having  adopted 
some  years  ago  a rail  pattern  which  I have  never  recommended 
to  other  roads,  nor  claimed  credit  for,  I now  unexpectedly  find 
from  Dr.  Holley’s  paper  that  62  per  cent,  of  modern  rail  sec- 
tions are  fashioned  after  that  pattern,  that  the  considerations  which 
guided  me  are  thought  worth  enumerating,  and  that  it  furnishes  a 
good  text  from  which  to  preach  a sermon  to  railroad  men.  I hope, 
however,  to  satisfy  you  that  I not  entitled  to  as  much  notice  as 
Dr.  Holley  has  been  pleased  to  give  me. 

As  Mr.  Welch  has  told  you,  we  were  both  in  1874  members  of 
a committee  of  the  American  Society  of  Civil  Engineers  to  investi- 
gate the  best  form  of  rail  sections.  He  then  called  my  attention  to 
the  success  of  the  thin  flange  and  stem  of  his  pattern  of  1866,  and  T 
adopted  them  for  the  Erie  Railway,  which  was  then  much  in  need 
of  a standard  steel  rail  section.  The  bevelled  head  was  furnished, 
ready  made,  by  the  sections  of  old  rails  which  I examined,  and  was 
confirmed  by  the  templates  of  worn  wheels,  twenty  or  thirty  in 
number,  which  I obtained  from  locomotives  and  cars.  I simply 
gathered  the  data,  and  was  guided  by  them,  as  any  one  would  have 
been  in  my  place,  and  as  in  fact  others  had  been,  for  I am  informed 
that  Mr.  Sayre,  of  the  Lehigh  Valley  Railroad,  and  Mr.  Fritz,  of  the 

8 


58 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


Bethlehem  Steel  Works,  had  designed  and  rolled  a similar  rail,  as* 
early  as  1870. 

The  Erie  rail  was  originally  designed  to  weigh  sixty  pounds  per 
yard,  this  being  the  limit  at  that  time  imposed  by  the  managers  of 
the  road.  It  took  some  months  to  get  the  pattern  accepted,  some  of 
the  rolling-mill  managers  declaring  that  it  could  not  be  rolled  with- 
out producing  a large  percentage  of  imperfect  rails.  Mr.  L.  S.  Bent, 
however,  the  superintendent  of  the  Pennsylvania  Steel  Company’s 
Works,  thought  differently  and  determined  to  try  it.  He  found  that 
the  percentage  of  imperfect  rails  was  actually  less  than  with  other 
patterns  then  in  use,  and  he  designed  and  introduced  a number  of  steel 
rail  sections  on  the  same  principle*  which  have  become  standards. 

Some  three  or  four  thousand  tons  w£re  rolled  and  laid  of  the  orig- 
inal Erie  sixty-pound  pattern,  and  they  have  stood  very  well,  but 
Dr.  Holley  having  suggested  that  the  thinness  of  the  foot,  in  pro- 
portion to  the  head,  might  cause  dangerous  internal  strains  in  cooling, 
and  thus  make  the  rail  brittle  and  dangerous,  a thickness  of  one- 
sixteenth  of  an  inch  was  added  to  the  foot,  increasing  the  weight  to 
sixty-three  pounds  per  yard,  and  this  has  been  the  Erie  standard 
section  ever  since.  As  I said  before,  in  my  opinion  the  Pennsylva- 
nia Railroad  section  of  sixty-seven  pounds  per  yard  is  better,  as 
likely  to  wear  about  50  per  cent,  longer. 

Up  to  a certain  point,  there  is  an  advantage  in  diversity  of  rail- 
road practice.  So  long  as  the  best  device  for  a particular  purpose 
is  not  ascertained,  there  is  a necessity  for  experimenting,  and  the 
resulting  variety  of  design.  When,  however,  the  best  pattern  is 
approximately  agreed  upon,  the  effort  should  be  towards  uniformity. 
This  point  seems  now  to  have  been  reached  about  steel  rail  sections, 
although  I had  no  idea  this  was  the  fact;  and  I hope  the  railroads 
will  take  advantage  of  the  economy  which  Dr.  Holley  has  shown  us 
to  result  from  the  adoption  of  uniform  standards. 

He  has  called  our  attention  to  the  importance  of  uniformity  in 
fishing,  and  especially  in  spacing  the  bolt-holes,  but  he  has  not  told 
us  which  he  considers  the  best  practice.  I venture  to  present  a 
drawing  of  the  Erie  standard  joint.  (See  accompanying  plate.) 
There  is  nothing  novel  about  it,  but  the  points  which  we  think 
meritorious,  are  the  following : 

1st.  The  holes  in  the  rails  are  placed  as  far  from  the  end  as  we 
deemed  practicable.  The  centre  of  the  first  hole  is  pitched  an  even 
4 inches  from  the  end  of  the  rail,  and  the  second  hole  is  6 inches 
beyond  this,  or  10  inches  from  the  end. 


TraiiM/ctlmi"  of  tlio  AinBrlcaii  InotltlltO  of  MIiiIiik  Engineer*.  VoL  IX, 


Clumate. 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  KAILS. 


59 


2d.  These  holes  are  drilled  in  all  cases,  are  1 inch  in  diameter,  and 
as  near  the  neutral  axis  of  the  rail  as  we  could  get. 

3d.  The  fishing  is  done  with  angle  plates,  which  we  find  about  70 
per  cent,  stronger  than  flat  plates.  The  notching  which  is  in  the 
fish-plate  and  not  in  the  rail,  is  spaced  3J  inches  from  one  end,  and 
5 inches  from  the  other,  so  that  when  the  plate,  which  is  reversible, 
is  applied  to  both  sides  of  the  rail,  the  notches  are  staggered  suffi- 
ciently to  avoid  splitting  the  tie  with  the  spikes. 

4th.  The  allowance  for  expansion  is  made  in  the  fish-plate,  the  two 
centre  holes  being  spaced  83^  inches  apart.  As  the  next  holes  are, 
of  course,  6 inches  beyond  the  centre  holes,  and  the  plate  is  designed 
to  be  24  inches  long,  it  will  be  noticed  that  if  *the  man  at  the  shears 
cuts  it  off  of  the  right  length,  and  the  man  at  the  punch  centres  it 
exactly,  the  distance  from  the  centre  of  the  end  holes  to  the  end  of 
the  plate  will  be  precisely  1|J  inches.  I hope  that  Dr.  Holley,  who 
says  he  was  appalled  at  the  thought  that  the  mind  of  man  can  hit 
perfection  in  spacing  fish-plate  holes  within  the  64th  of  an  inch,  will 
see  from  this  brief  exposition  of  the  process,  that  it  is  more  easy  to 
accomplish  than  he  supposed. 

5th.  The  holes  in  the  fish-plate  are  made  oval  to  allow  for  expan- 
sion and  contraction.  The  bolt,  which  is  f of  an  inch  in  diameter, 
is  upset  under  the  head  to  fill  this  oval  hole,  and  thus  prevent  turning. 
It  is  provided  with  a hexagonal  nut,  under  which  we  generally  place 
a thin  washer  of  wrought  iron.  We  have  very  little  trouble  from 
nuts  getting  loose,  so  little  indeed,  that  while  we  have  experimented 
with  a number  of  lock-nuts,  we  have  not  deemed  it  necessary  to 
adopt  any  of  them. 

But  I fear  I am  becoming  wearisome  by  my  discussion  of  these 
details,  which  would  be  more  appropriate  before  a special  committee 
on  this  subject,  such  as  that  appointed  in  1874,  by  the  Society  of 
Civil  Engineers.  The  main  point  before  you,  is  that  so  well  made 
by  Dr.  Holley,  of  the  importance  and  economy  of  uniformity  in  rail 
sections  and  fastenings.  Of  that  we  have  had  some  experience. 
We  had  on  the  Erie  railway,  when  the  new  steel  section  was  adopted, 
12  patterns  of  steel  rails,  29  patterns  of  iron  rails,  and  96  different 
styles  of  fastenings.  These  caused  no  end  of  annoyance,  delays,  and 
expense, in  matching  or  mismatching  them,  taking  up  and  changing 
about  long  strings  of  rails,  and  in  the  large  stocks  which  it  was 
necessary  to  keep  for  repairs.  This  has  all  been  done  away  with,  by 
the  adoption  of  a single  pattern  of  rail  and  of  fastening,  and  the  re- 
sulting economy  fully  confirms  all  that  Dr.  Holley  has  said.  He 


60 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


has  shown  us  that  the  railroads  of  this  country  can  save  several  mil- 
lions a year  by  adopting  uniform  rail  sections,  and  as  unfortunately 
for  him,  he  cannot  patent  his  idea,  it  only  remains  for  the  railroads 
to  adopt  it,  and  to  thank  him  for  his  paper. 

Dr.  C.  B.  Dudley,  Altoona,  Pa.  : In  rising  to  close  this  inter- 
esting discussion,  I want,  in  the  first  place,  to  thank  every  one  who 
has  contributed  to  it  for  his  full  and  open  criticism.  The  work 
which  has  been  done  on  steel  rails,  and  which  has  been  discussed 
here  during  these  two  days,  was  not  done  to  establish  any  pet  theo- 
ries, nor  to  make  out  that  any  person  was  great  or  any  person  small, 
but  with  a sincere  desire  to  get  at  what  is  the  truth  in  regard  to  the 
wearing  capacity  of  steel  rails.  There  are  enormous  commercial 
considerations  involved  in  this  question,  and,  as  I look  at  the  matter, 
the  more  honest  criticism  and  fair  discussion  there  is,  the  more  likely 
it  is  that  the  truth  will  appear. 

And  first  I would  like  to  say  that  it  seems  to  me  very  little  has 
been  said  here  upon  the  main  conclusion  of  the  paper,  namely,  that 
the  softer  rails  give  the  better  wear.  All  sorts  of  side  issues  have 
been  discussed;  but  this  point,  which  is  really  the  principal  one  at 
issue,  has  been  largely  ignored,  and  I cannot  but  feel  that  it  still 
remains  unshaken. 

With  regard  to  chemists  and  chemical  work,  there  has  been  con- 
siderable said  tending  to  throw  discredit  on  chemists  and  their  work  ; 
and  while  I believe  that  there  have  been  in  the  past,  are  now,  and 
may  be.  in  the  future,  a good  many  poor  chemical  analyses  made,  I 
also  believe  that  chemists  are,  as  a rule,  as  honest  and  competent  as 
gentlemen  who  belong  to  other  professions.  There  are  chemists  who 
are  chemists,  and  chemists  who  are  not  chemists. 

The  determination  of  manganese  has  been  called  in  question. 
Now  I think  the  chemist  at  almost  every  steel  works  in  the  country 
will  tell  you  that,  in  his  experience,  the  manganese  differs  in  different 
parts  of  the  same  ingot.  Mr.  T.  T.  Morrell,  chemist  of  the  Cambria 
Iron  Company,  whom  I believe  to  be  a thoroughly  competent  and 
honest  chemist,  tells  me  that  he  has  often  found  different  amounts  of 
manganese  in  different  parts  of  the  same  ingot.  Come  with  me  to 
Altoona,  and  I will  take  you  into  the  machine  shop  where  steel  is 
being  cut  and  shaped,  and  I will  show  you  that  it  is  often  necessary 
to  stop  the  lathe  or  planer  and  take  a cold  chisel  to  cut  out  a hard  spot, 
or  else  run  the  risk  of  breaking  the  tool.  This  hard  spot  is  simply 
a part  of  the  spiegel  which  is  not  thoroughly  mixed  with  the  mass 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


61 


when  the  steel  is  made.  In  the  rapid  methods  by  which  steel  is  at 
present  manufactured,  time  enough  is  not  allowed  for  the  spiegel  to 
become  uniformly  mixed.  What  wonder,  then,  that  chemists  find 
different  amounts  of  manganese  in  what  is  supposed  to  be,  but  is  not, 
the  same  steel.  Indeed  I believe  it  is  possible  for  the  borings  from 
one  bore  hole’in  the  same  ingot  to  be  given  to  two  chemists  and  to 
have  them  find  differentfamounts  of  manganese,  and  yet  both  analyses 
be  correct.  And  so,  I say  to  the  steel  makers,  “ Make  uniform  steel, 
and  we,  as  chemists,  will  tell  you  what  there  is  in  it.” 

With  regard  to  the  determinations  of  manganese  in  the  series  of 
rails  we  are  discussing,  I would  say,  I wish  Mr.  Wells  was  here, 
that  you  might  see  him  for  yourselves.  When  I began  this  work? 
I wrote  to  my  old  instructor  in  chemistry,  Professor  O.  D.  Allen,  of 
the  Sheffield  Scientific  School,  to  recommend  me  some  one  to  help 
me.  He  replied  that  if  Mr.  Wells  would  come  he  could  heartily 
recommend  him.  He  had  had  two  years’  experience  since  his  gradu- 
ation, and,  said  Professor  Allen,  “ I regard  him  as  the  best  analytical 
chemist  that  has  graduated  under  me.”  And  I may  add  that  both 
Professor  Drown  and  myself  graduated  under  Professor  Allen. 

Still  further,  it  is  simply  impossible  that  any  errors,  either  in  the 
chemical  analyses  or  the  physical  tests,  should  have  had  any  influ- 
ence in  establishing  the  point  that  the  softer  steel  gives  the  better 
wear.  This  follows  from  the  way  in  which  the  work  was  done. 
First  the  physical  tests  were  made,  then  the  analyses,  then  the  ton- 
nage was  computed,  and  finally  the  loss  of  metal  was  determined. 
So  that  we  knew  nothing  about  a rail  until  all  the  chemical  analyses 
and  physical  tests  were  made.  Furthermore,  some  of  the  rails  that 
were  selected  as  faster-wearing  rails,  when  we  came  to  get  the  rate  of 
wear,  were  found  to  be  slower-wearing  rails.  So  that  no  previous 
bias  of  mind,  or,  as  it  seems  to  me,  no  possible  errors  in  the  work 
could  influence  the  result. 

Again  with  regard  to  sulphur  and  copper,  it  is  said  that  these  are 
of  vital  importance,  and  should  have  been  determined.  In  answer 

this  I would  say : Where  is  the  man  that  can  affirm,  and  back 
his  statement  by  any  analysis,  that  sulphur  and  copper  have  any 
influence  on  the  wearing  capacity  of  steel  ? I do  not  say  that  these 
elements  do  not  have  an  influence  on  wear,  but  when  this  investi- 
gation was  started  the  best  information  that  I could  get  was  that 
sulphur  and  copper  were  of  vastly  more  importance  to  the  steel 
manufacturers  than  they  were  to  the  consumer.  And  so  I say  that 
I believe  the  sulphur  and  copper  are  of  importance  to  the  makers  of 


62 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


steel,  but  of  not  so  much  importance  to  one  studying  its  wearing 
capacity.  If  you  want  to  know  the  sulphur  and  copper  in  these  rails 
you  may  determine  them. 

Probably  no  one  has  thought  over  the  question  why  some  of  the 
rails  in  this  series  seem  to  be  exceptions  to  the  general  law  more  than 
I have.  This  suggestion  in  regard  to  sulphur  and  copper,  and  other 
undetermined  substances,  and  especially,  in  tny  judgment,  oxide  of 
iron,  furnishes  a possible  solution  of  the  problem.  If  we  knew  every 
foreign  substance  which  these  rails  contain,  I doubt  not  but  that 
some  of  the  anomalies  would  be  explained.  And  I would  here  like 
to  ask  chemists  who  have  time  to  devote  to  such  studies,  to  give  us 
a method  for  determining  oxide  of  iron  in  steel. 

Another  point  made  was  the  influence  of  heavier  locomotives  and 
cars  on  the  wear  of  rails.  If  I understand  this  criticism  it  is  this : 
Your  slower-wearing  rails  had  lighter-wheel  tonnage  for  at  least  a 
portion  of  their  life — the  earlier  portion — while  your  faster- wearing 
rails  have  had  almost  altogether  heavier-wheel  tonnage.  In  reply, 
I say  the  slower-wearing  rails  had  during  the  latter  part  of  their  life 
the  same  heavier-wheel  tonnage  that  the  faster-wearing  had.  All 
the  rails  were  taken  out  of  the  track  at  the  same  time,  and,  conse- 
quently, so  far  as  I can  see,  the  comparison  of  the  wearing  capacity 
of  steel  with  its  quality  is  strictly  a fair  one. 

Again,  in  the  course  of  this  discussion — not  a few  times— the  excep- 
tional cases,  the  cases  where  individual  rails  did  not  conform  to  the 
general  law,  have  been  taken  out  and  held  up  prominently  before  us, 
as  though  these  individual  and  exceptional  cases  were  the  only  thing 
we  should  consider.  Now,  I submit  to  you  that  this  is  simply  trying 
to  overthrow  a law  by  the  exceptions  to  it,  or,  in  other  words,  to 
nullify  the  teachings  of  a large  number  of  samples  by  the  teachings 
of  a few  exceptional  cases,  and  I submit  still  further  that  this  method 
of  proceeding  is  neither  good  logic,  nor  fair,  sound  deduction. 

I must  not  omit  to  comment  on  the  remarks  of  those  speakers 
who  have  refuted  conclusions  which  I did  not  advance,  and  have 
then  considered  my  position,  namely,  that  the  softer  rails  give  the 
better  wear,  as  completely  demolished.  A notable  case  of  this  kind 
is  Mr.  Kent,  who  because  he  does  not  find  that  there  is  a direct  rela- 
tion between  the  loss  of  metal  and  the  carbon,  phosphorus,  silicon, 
or  manganese,  or  phosphorus  units  in  this  series  of  rails,  affirms 
that  I have  not  solved  the  whole  problem  of  wear,  and,  ergo , the 
softer  rails  do  not  give  the  better  wear.  I beg  to  remind  him  that 
I have  never  said  that  I had  solved  the  problem  of  wear.  I ex- 


SCUSSION  ON  STEEL  RAILS. 


63 


my  I have  not  solved  it,  but  I do  not  see  how  that  affects 
n question ; nor  do  I see,  because  there  is  no  direct  relation 
ween  carbon  and  loss  of  metal,  that  it  is  impossible  for  me  to 
take  a series  of  rails  which  have  been  in  service  and  find  by  a study 
of  them  what  chemical  composition  and  what  physical  properties  are, 
in  general,  characteristic  of  those  rails  which  have  given  the  best 
service.  This  I claim  to  have  done,  and  the  conclusion  seems  to 
me  so  plain  that  he  who  runs  may  read,  namely,  that  the  softer 
rails  give  the  better  wear. 

With  regard  to  Mr.  Metcalf  and  his  attributing  all  the  troubles 
of  steel  to  nitrogen,  I think  it  may  fairly  be  said,  first,  that  Mr. 
Metcalf  brings  no  proof  to  show  that  nitrogen  is  the  bane  of  steel ; 
and  second,  if  it  is,  the  natural  conclusion  would  be  that  no  steel 
could  be  made  except  by  the  crucible  process,  which  would  undoubt- 
edly be  a satisfactory  conclusion  for  crucible  steelmakers,  like  Mr. 
Metcalf,  but  would  hardly  satisfy  the  stockholders  of  the  Bessemer 
works,  or  stop  their  making  steel  with  nitrogen  in  it  in  the  future. 
With  regard  to  another  criticism  of  Mr.  Metcalf’s,  that  the  question 
of  flow  had  not  been  considered,  I would  say  that  I think  there  is 
very  little  evidence  of  flow  in  this  series  of  rails  anyway.  And  so 
I asked  Mr.  Metcalf  how  the  flow  influenced  the  loss  of  metal  by 
wear.  He  replied  that  flow  squeezes  the  metal  toward  the  flange 
and  then  the  flange  rubs  it  off.  To  this  I made  reply,  that  the  flow, 
whatever  there  is  of  it,  must  be  away  from  the  forces  which  produce 
it.  Now,  both  the  pressure  of  the  flange  against  the  rail  and  the 
coning  of  the  wheels  would  cause  the  metal  to  flow  away  from  the 
flanges  instead  of  toward  them,  and  consequently  I do  not  see  how 
you  are  going  to  get  metal  there  for  the  flange  to  rub  off.  The  flow 
must  be  in  the  other  direction,  or  away  from  the  flanges.  Although 
a few  of  the  rails  in  this  series  give  evidence  of  having  a little  metal 
pushed  off  out  of  place  by  reason  of  flow,  yet  the  metal  is  there.  It 
is  not  worn  off,  and  the  question  we  are  studying  is  loss  of  metal  by 
wear. 

One  or  two  points  further,  and  I am  done.  It  has  been  said, 
“ You  have  not  exhausted  the  question  yet.  More  study  must  be 
put  upon  it.”  No  one  is  more  conscious  of  the  truth  of  these  state- 
ments than  I.  I do  not  pretend  to  have  exhausted  the  question.  I 
wish  there  were  fifty  workers  in  this  field.  But  I believe  that  the 
results  that  we  are  discussing  are  the  best  information  that  we  now 
have  upon  the  question  as  to  the  relation  between  the  wearing  capa- 
city of  steel  and  its  chemistry  and  physics.  I would  not  at  all  affirm 


64 


DISCUSSION  ON  STEEL 


that  this  will  be  the  best  information  on  the  subject  five 
now.  But  I think  that  man  does  his  life-work  bast  who  1 
all  the  light  that  he  has  in  his  own  time.  And  so  I ask 
utilize  this  work,  to  act  upon  it,  and  guide  your  practice  by  it  until 
something  better  is  obtained. 

Finally,  I have  been  accused  of  trying  to  teach  the  steelmakers  how 
to  make  steel,  and  it  is  to  be  supposed  that  they  know  already  much 
more  about  that  point  than  I do.  Now,  if  any  one  thinks  that  such  has 
been  my  aim,  or  has  ever  been  in  my  thoughts,  he  has  certainly  mis- 
understood me.  What  I am  striving  for  is  to  tell  the  steelmakers 
what  we  want,  not  how  to  supply  this  want.  This  whole  question  of 
the  fitness  of  material  for  the  purposes  for  which  it  is  intended  is  in 
its  infancy.  We  are  doing  something  toward  studying  it  at  Altoona. 
The  principle  which  governs  us  there  is  that  the  kind  of  service  that 
is  to  be  required  of  the  metal  must  determine  what  kind  of  metal 
shall  be  used.  Because  softer  steel  gives  better  rails,  we  do  not 
think  softer  steel  will  give  better  crank-pins.  In  crank-pins  we 
require  stiffness,  which  comes  with  harder  steel.  But  in  rails,  in  tires, 
in  bridge  rods,  and  in  boiler  plate  we  are,  so  far  as  our  knowledge 
now  goes,  inclined  toward  soft  steel.  And  all  the  information  which 
we  have  thus  far  been  able  to  accumulate  in  regard  to  these  kinds  of 


service  confirms  our  position  and  justifies  our  conclusion. 

And  now,  how  can  the  best  results  be  obtained  in  trying  to  decide 
upon  the  qualtity  of  material  best  fitted  for  any  kind  of  service?  I 
do  not  see  that  the  steelmakers  can  study  this  question  alone,  for 
after  the  steel  leaves  their  hands  they  know  very  little  of  its  beha- 
vior. It  does  not  come  under  their  personal  observation  and  study. 
It  seems  to  me,  therefore,  that  the  question  can  only  be  studied  by 
both  the  consumer  and  the  producer  working  together.  I cannot 
but  regard  that  the  interests  of  the  consumer  and  the  producer  in 
this  matter  are  one,  that  neither  can  solve  the  question  alone,  and 
so  I ask  you  to  work  with,  rather  than  oppose  me,  to  utilize  the 
the  information  that  is  gained,  so  far  as  it  is  gained,  and  to  constantly 
hold  in  mind  the  necessary  dependence  of  both  producer  and  con- 
sumer upon  each  other. 


